February 15, 1933 (2)

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. If the Senator will par- . don me---

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

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Yes.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The question might become of practical importance; but in passing upon this joint resolution it is not essential to determine the exact limitations on the Federal power and on the power of Congress nor the extent of the authority that is vested in the State by virtue of the constitutional provision which authorizes the ratification of amendments.

It seems to me that it can not be very profitable to carry on an academic discussion about what might happen if something occurs that is not likely to happen. What I should like to do is to hear the Senator from Montana further on the more practical aspects of the matter, if he cares to submit further observations regarding them. I ani very much interested in his views.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I have said all that I care to say on that feature of the matter before the Senate.

Mr. HEBERT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Montana yield to the Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield.

Mr. HEBERT. I desire to make this observation, in order to keep the record straight:

When this joint resolution was before the full Judiciary Committee the Senator will recollect that a motion was made to have it referred to conventions and not to legislatures. For the purpose of the RECORD, I desire to state now that I voted to have that change made in the joint resolution. I also voted to eliminate the third paragraph of the joint resolution, which ·provides for conferring concurrent power Upon Congress and the States to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquor to be drunk on the premises where sold.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, if the Senator from Montana will be kind enough to indulge me to "follow through," so to speak, on a thought that I expressed, but left without clear definition, I said that it was said that this is more or less an academic discussion as to the power of the Federal Government through the Congress to impose the conditions under which the conventions shall be held. What I meant by that is that even if the power be conceded, I do not believe that the Congress should attempt to exercise it to the extent of supervising the elections or defining the qualifications of the delegates. I am sure that if the Congress should decide to do that, and attempt to do it, it would result in the defeat of ratification in a large number of States.

Mr. HEBERT. Mr. President---

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PATTERSON in the chair). Does the Senator from Montana yield to the Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield.

Mr. HEBERT. Following the observation the Senator from Arkansas has just made, it has never seemed to me that Congress should limit the power of the States to provide for the election of delegates to a convention any more than Congress attempted to limit the power of the States to choose their representatives in the legislatures for the election of Senators when Senators were elected by the legislatures. In other words, Congress never fixed any limitation upon the method of electing members of State legislatures who were to choose Senators in the Congress of the United States, and I see no reason now why Congress should attempt to fix a limitation upon how delegates to a convention for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution should be chosen.

Mr. WALSH of Massachusetts. Mr. President, I suppose the Senator will agree that if Congress has the power to fix the time when the conventions in the various States shall assemble, and the number of delegates to the conventions, and other details of that kind, it may likewise prescribe how they shall be elected, by congressional districts, by assembly districts, or otherwise.

Mr. HEBERT. I concede that.

. Mr. WALSH of Montana. So the Senator would be obliged to concede, I suppose, that if Congress has the power to do that, it can provide what the qualifications of the delegates shall be.

Mr. HEBERT. I have felt that Congress had that power.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. So the Senator would contend that Congress, although it might not exercise the power, could exercise the right and power, and has the authority, to go to the very limit and regulate the elections, just as they are regulated under our State statutes.

Mr. HEBERT. It seems to me that that is an absolute concomitant of the whole thing.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. That argument was made in an elaborate discussion of the subject by Mr. A. Mitchell Palmer, once an Attorney General of the United States, but I did not know the Senator from Rhode Island subscribed to that view.

Mr. HEBERT. I am inclined to agree with that theory of the method of putting an amendment into the Constitution.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. However, I think perhaps the Senator from Rhode Island would agree that there is no probability that Congress will do any thing of the kind.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield.

Mr. LEWIS. The question I intended to address to my able friend from Montana has been put by the Senator from Rhode Island, the premises assumed by him, conceded by the Senator from Montana, if it can be admitted that the Federal Government has such power. The Senator from Montana takes the position that though it may be that the Federal Government could, on the question of amending the Constitution, prescribe the qualifications of the delegates by prescribing that certain standards which prevail in the States as to the legislatures should be the standards in the selection of the delegates to the conventions, yet the Senator takes the position that while that directory form of stat- ute would be a method of prescribing the qualifications, there is no power on the part of the Federal Government for prescribing a method.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Exactly; either general in its expression or ill detail.

Mr. LEWIS. Then I ask the Senator this question, and, in conclusion-we have carried the inquiry too far afield. If it were not the intention of the provision that allows conventions as distinguished from legislatures to imply power to prescribe a method of calling a convention that could be controlled by Congress, would not the result be, if only the State could prescribe the method of selection and the qualifications of the delegates to the convention, that States which were averse to the Federal Government, or the purpose in view, could prescribe such qualifications and limitations as to the delegates as to practically defeat the very amendment itself?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. So they could, but they could defeat it by refusing to call conventions at all

Mr. LEWIS. But if Congress calls the conventions, merely directing the States as to the qualifications, would not that be a fulfillment of the statute? Otherwise, why have a convention?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The States could be entirely ignored in the matter, and Congress could go on and make all needful rules and regulations, if it had any such power. My contention is that it has not.

Mr. LEWIS. The difference lies in the fact that the Senator from Montana does not conceive that the Federal Government has the power to do it, without regard to the qualifications.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Exactly.

Mr. LEWIS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield.

Mr. NORRIS. In order to carry out what I believe to be the logic of the view taken by the Senator from Rhode Island and others who agree with him, assuming that Congress has the power to fix the qualifications of the members of the State conven ti ons called to pass on an amendment to the Constitution-which I do not agree to for a momentwould it not really follow, even though it did not follow as a legal proposition, that it would be incumbent upon Congress to pay the expenses of the convention out of the Federal Treasury?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. That is a necessary consequence, it seems to me.

Mr. NORRIS. Otherwise it would be within the power of Congress to put a burden upon the State which the State would not want to assume. Of course, it would not have to, and it might be the very cause, if we undertook to fix the qualifications, especially if we made the matter expensive, of many States declining to do anything.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, does not the Senator from Nebraska recognize that the FedeTal Government does not pay the expenses of the elections of Representatives in Congress from the various districts 1n the different States?

Mr. NORRIS. Exactly.

Mr. LEWIS. Would not that be an exact parallel?

Mr. NORRIS. If the Senator's theory is correct, and the Federal Government . is going to direct the States to pass on this amendment by conventions, if we have the right, and then go further and say how big the conventions shall be, what their membership shall be, and what the pay of the delegates shall be, we could saddle upon the States conventions that would be absoluteiy obnoxious to many of them in the one item of expense.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, upon the same theory, then, the States could decide and determine not to call any convention at all, even authorized by the legislature, as beyond its ability to stand on account of the expense.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, let me submit to the Senator this question: If Congress had the power to prescribe the method of holding the conventions, and so on, how could Congress impose that burden upon the States? The Constitution provides that each State shall be entitled to representation in proportion to its population, to be determined by Congress, except that each State shall have at least one Representative in the House of Representatives. But we do not compel a State to elect Representatives. If it does not want to pay the expenses of holding an election for Representatives, it will not have any Representatives. So that if we undertook to put the expense of holding the convention upon the States, they might not hold any conventions. Suppose Congress says the States themselves shall hold conventions at certain times and places, and the State of lllinois, for example, goes on and provides all the machinery for that purpose, and we assume that the State of lllinois must pay the expense. How is the United States to collect the expense from the State of illinois?

Mr. LEWIS. I answer the Senator that I never conceded that Congress would have the mandatory power to say to Dlinois, "You shall hold an election," and that an act passed here could give it the power to prescribe that the qualifications for members of the legislature of the State should be the qualifications for members of a convention.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But we are speaking about the expense. ;The Senator · suggests to the Senator from Nebraska that the expense need not be assumed by Congress in that event; that it may be imposed upon the States.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. How could it be collected?

Mr. LEWIS. It could be imposed upon the State just as is imposed the responsibility of electing Congressmen. That is imposed upon the State, although the Congressman serves as an official of the Federal Government.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But the Constitution provides that each State shall be entitled to so many Representatives. If it does not hold elections, it does not have the Representatives, that is all. We are speaking about the cost. It is assumed Congress is to call a convention and prescribe the qualifications, and then say, "We are not going to pay the expense of it, however. The States must pay the expense."

Mr. President, that is all I care to say about that. I want at all. now to say a word in respect to the third paragraph of the amendment.

Both the Democratic and the Republican platforms declared that public opinion has outlawed the saloon. The Senator from New York says that the public opinion of the Nation has outlawed the saloon, and he insists that the State of New York will pass the requisite legislation outlawing the saloon.

It occurred to the committee, in preparing this joint resolution, that the third paragraph of the resolution submitted for the consideration of the Senate now would be a declaration by the Congress of the United States that public opinion in the United States is against the saloon, and that that would act as a very powerful suggestion to the States of the Union that they ought to legislate accordingly now that the sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes becomes permissible; that they ought to legislate in relation to the saloon. We simply desired to reserve to the Congress the power, in case the legislatures of the various States do not do so, so Congress might do so. Furthermore, it occurred to all of us that the amendment would help to get ratification by the requisite 36 States.

Of course, the Senator from New York is perfectly confident that the amendment will be ratified by 36 or possibly by 48 States and he may be right about it. My judgment is that it will not be so easy as that. A bare repeal amendment would go along all right enough in some of the States, and in possibly half of the States, but there would be the borderline States in which the sentiment against the saloon is definite and is acute, and inasmuch as it seemed to us likely that the States would legislate in relation to the matter anyway, there would be no occasion for Congress legislating upon the matter, and that this would help in getting the requisite number for ratification. Those were the considerations which influenced the committee in including this provision in the repeal resolution.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator, since this section gives concurrent power to Congress to regulate or prohibit the saloon, it gives equal power to the States, does it not?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I would not put it that way, because the States have that power anyway. We simply say that the Congress shall have concurrent power with the States; that is to say, the States have the power, and we give the power also to the Congress.

Mr. BROOKHART. Then the power under this proposed amendment and under the existing power of the States is both in the States and in the Congress to regulate and prohibit the saloon?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Yes.

Mr. BROOKHART. Under that power the State of New York could legalize the saloon, and, at the same time, the National Government could prohibit it.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Exactly.

Mr. BROOKHART. Both acts would be constitutional, and we would have a state of civil war existing between the State and the National Government.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. No; there would be no trouble at all. If a man were indicted in the State of New York for running a saloon, he could refer to the statutes and say, "There is no statute of the State of New York prohibiting that." But over in the Federal jurisdiction they would indict him under the Federal statute, and he would be prosecuted for running the saloon.

Mr. BROOKHART. Suppose the State of New York made the saloon legal by affirmative enactment?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The State of New York could not make the saloon legal as against a Federal statute. It would be a nullification of a Federal statute.

Mr. BROOKHART. It could not if the Federal Congress had full power, but when it has only concurrent power, it looks different to me.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. There is no trouble about it

Mr. HEBERT. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Montana yield to the Senator from Rhode Island?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I yield.

Mr. HEBERT. In the correspondence which I have had on this subject, and it has been rather voluminous, there has been much criticism of the particular clause in the proposed amendment.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. From Rhode Island, I suppose?

Mr. HEBERT. From every State, I may say; though I do not remember any particular instance from the Senator's own State. The use of the word " concurrent " appeared to be offensive to many people.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. If the Senator will pardon an interruption, that has always seemed to me a most marvelous thing. When the eighteenth amendment was before the Supreme Court of the United States elaborate arguments were made in relation to the word "concurrent," and it was contended there would be no crime unless both the State legislature and the Federal Congress made the thing criminal. The Supreme Court dismissed it without any trouble at all.

The Senator will perfectly well remember in his study of the Constitution and the textbooks dealing with the subject that the powers of Congress are classified as exclusive or concurrent; that is to say, powers in which Congress alone can legislate and other powers in which Congress can legislate or a State legislature may legislate, either one or the other. When we had the child labor amendment before us an effort was made to put in the same provision, . which seemed to some of us most feasible, that Congress or the State legislatures might both legislate upon the subject of child labor. Some of the ladies who were very eager to have the amendment adopted emitted such a howl about the word " concurrent " that we actually took it out.

Mr. HEBERT. I think the Senator will bear me out that that amendment. we concluded to use the word " concurrent " in this part of the amendment in order that there might be no question about the power of the States to legislate on the subject.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Exactly.

Mr. HEBERT. We felt that if we did not use that term it might be argued, and perhaps successfully, too, that we intended to leave to the Congress the sole right to regulate the sale of liquor in that way. But in order that there might be no question the word "concurrent" was inserted there.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The Senator has quite accurately stated the views of the committee.

Mr. HEBERT. Of course, there is the further observation that if a State, as has been said by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. BROOKHART], shall license saloons and the Federal Government shall prohibit the licensing of saloons, we are going to get right back into the same condition under which we are now living so far as the sale of intoxicating liquor is concerned. The Federal Government will take precedence by its enactments over those of a State so far as the offense committed against the Federal laws may be concerned. The Federal Government can prosecute for violation of its laws even though the State would permit that to be done · which the Federal law prohibits.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The Senator will remember that under the old system a State might authorize the sale of liquors, but the Federal Government provided that no one should sell any liquor unless he first paid a tax into the Federal Government. The Federal Government prosecuted the people who were carrying on a business which was perfectly legitimate under the State law.

Mr. HEBERT. May I observe that the Federal Government in those cases did not prosecute for violation of a law against the sale, but because no tax had been paid.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Selling without payment of a

Mr. HEBERT. But it was not a violation of the law as we are considering it now.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. It seems to me fully so. The Federal Government made it a crime to sell without first having paid an internal-revenue tax, and although a man was carrying on a business strictly in accordance with the State law, still he ran afoul of the Federal statute. We would have the same thing here. If a State legalized or permitted or tolerated the saloon, of course we could not prosecute a man under the State statute, but if we had a Federal statute he would run afoul of the Federal statute.

Mr. HEBERT. I am aware of the argument that was under consideration when we had the matter before the committee, that it would materially assist in - the adoption of the amendment in a number of the States where otherwise the amendment would not be apt to be looked upon favorably. I think there is some merit in that argument.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, that is where I wanted to interrupt the Senator a little while ago. Will the Senator from Montana yield to me now?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Certainly.

Mr. NORRIS. He referred to it before and I was notallowed to correct what I believed to be an implication that might come from the Senator's remarks. But the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. HEBERT] has referred to it again. I agree with the Senator from Montana and also with the Senator from Rhode Island. In my judgment this very provision will assist in its adoption in some of the States. But the Senator from Montana made a statement, and I think he was referring to the Judiciary Committee when he said "all of us." That does not apply to me. I do not know to how many others it applies. We will all concede it would help to get the amendment ratified, but it had nothing to do with my vote. I supported the amendment because if we were going to have repeal, I want to keep the saloon out of business and I thought this was the only provision in the amendment that would do it. It has no other right to live, it seems to me, except to keep the saloon from coming back. That was my object and the only object I had in supporting

Mr. GLASS. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Nebraska how it is going to keep the saloon from coming back if Congress does not avail of its constitutional privilege to keep it out?

Mr. NORRIS. It will not. Just like any other constitutional provision, it will have no effect unless legislation is had on the subject. I agree with the Senator from Montana that the idea was that the States should legislate. They can enact any law they please; but if the States or any of the States provide for the reopening of the saloon, Congress, under this provision, will have the right to step in and enact a law . that will prevent the sale of intoxicating liquors to be drunk on the premises where sold.

Mr. GLASS. If Congress does not step in, then the saloon will be back.

Mr. NORRIS. Yes; then the saloon is back.

Mr. GLASS. And it will be back, too.

Mr. NORRIS. There is no question about it.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I was moved to make these remarks simply because this matter has been discussed with some feeling of resentment toward the committee that is charged with endeavoring to defeat really the repeal of the eighteenth amendment or substitute something for general repeal that would be of no consequence. The conclusions of the committee were not arrived at hurriedly at all. They were the result of very extended discussion and deliberate thought, and I have endeavored to advance the reasons which impelled the committee to reach the conclusions it did.

Mr. GLASS. Mr. President, let me suggest this question to the Senator from Montana. We have talked a great deal about the sanctity of platform declarations. If, under their oaths and their consciences, the · Judiciary Committee may utterly ignore · one definite textual declaration of party platforms, why may not the individual Senators under their oaths and their conscientious conceptions do the same thing?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I know of no reason.

Mr. NORRIS. Surely, why not do it?

Mr. GLASS. The contention here is, particularly by the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER], that we are under some sort of solemn obligation to observe the text of party platforms.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Virginia yield to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. GLASS. Certainly.

Mr. NORRIS. The Senator from Virginia seems to be directing his question at me. I want to say that so far as I am concerned, if anyone who thinks - he owes an allegiance to any party platform and that to follow it up would conflict with the duty he owes to his country here as a Senator, he ought to have no hesitancy in casting his party platform aside.

Mr. GLASS. But the Senator has heard over and over again the declaration here that the Congress is under obligations to obey the party platforms. Senators can not obey both of them because they are very different.

Mr. NORRIS. I agree with the Senator. But it does not bother me any. I do not know how it affects other Senators to disregard the platform.

Mr. GLASS. If we can not obey both of them, I want somebody to tell me just how we are going to get a twothirds vote in the Senate to submit the amendment to the States.

Mr. NORRIS. Perhaps we can not.

Mr. GLASS. Democratic spokesmen talk about a declaration of the Democratic Party and want to constrain us to feel that that declaration · is superior to our own oaths. Why may we not impute to Senators on the other side of the Chamber as much regard for the sanctity of platform declarations as is asked on this side of the Chamber?

Mr. NORRIS. The Senator may do so. There is no objection to his doing it. ·

Mr. GLASS. I do not know whether we can. I want to find out whether we can or not. If we may impute that degree of adherence to the Republican Party platform, and the Democrats have not a two-thirds majority here, how are we going to submit the question at all?

Mr. NORRIS. Maybe we can not submit it.

Mr. GLASS. I do not think we can. [Laughter.]

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Mr. President, the debate has taken a very wide range. It is not my intention to prolong the discussion. My object is to address the remarks I shall make . to the question before the Senate, the amendment which requires a choice on the part of the Senate between conventions and legislatures as the agency for ratification. This difference or issue has been treated by the able Senators who have spoken as a mere trivial matter. It was referred to by the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. BLAINE] as not substantial. The implication of the remarks of the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] was to the same effect. Mr. President, when the two great political parties of this Nation, the Democratic and the Republican Parties, laid down their lines of battle, we all recall how much thought and attention was given to the question of prohibition. Effort was made to formulate declarations of such character as would be calculated to invite the support of the electors. It is rather a singular thing, considering the fact that throughout the entire history of the Nation the only method of ratification ever resorted to was through the legislatures and that both political parties, when they were challenging public support, expressly declared for a different method of ratification from that which had theretofore been resorted to. Some statement has been made that since there are conflicts on the subject in the two platforms, there is no practicability of anybody being loyal to the pledge on which he was elected; that he is under no obligation to keep faith with those whose support he asked on the basis of his platform declaration. I point out to the Senate now that whatever distinction may exist in fact or may exist in the imagination of Senators between the two platforms, there is one point on which there is no difference, and that point has relationship to the amendment now under consideration. When Senators wanted votes they said, " We will give the States a chance to pass upon the question of repeal and in order to make certain that the individuals who perform the act of ratification may be responsive to public sentiment, we will refer the resolution for repeal to conventions in the States chosen solely for the purpose .of passing on this issue." Oh, yes, there were differences of opinion as to the terms upon which repeal should be submitted, but there was no tana? difference of opinion upon the method of ratification; and by the express language contained in both platforms it was declared by the great masses of the people to be of substance and of importance. Senators did not go on the stump and tell the people whose votes they were soliciting that they did not regard that declaration in favor of conventions in the States, chosen solely for the purpose of passing on this question, as of no importance. They appealed for confidence and support on the ground that they were going to make certain that there would be a reflection in the act of ratification or rejection of the actual will of the people who constituted their constituents.

There is a difference in submitting a question to a "lame duck " Congress and submitting an issue to a Congress elected on that issue; and that same difference, Senators, exists between submitting to a legislature composed of Senators in some instances elected six years before the issue arose and in submitting it to those who come fresh from the people, chosen as a result of the expression of public opinion, chosen for the one and only purpose of passing on the issue involved, of determining the act of ratification or rejection; and there is not anyone here who may be permitted to treat that as a matter of trivial importance.

However, the next statement made is that it is expensive to have conventions, and for that reason Senators on the other side of the Chamber wish to forget their platform pledge, and we on this side of the Chamber should do the same thing. Every two years in most of the States, and every four years in all the States, State conventions of a political character are held, and they are representative of every small political unit. Those conventions are not expensive. The cost of a convention in a State depends upon the will of the public and the will of the legislature. The delegates do not have to be high-priced public servants; and every man in this country owes some duty of free service to his country. He might once attend a constitutional convention or a convention called for the ratification of the constitutional provision without requiring those who selected him to pay liberally for his services. He might even con- tribute his own expenses, as every one of us do when political conventions are called. The cost, I repeat, is a matter that may be determined by the policy of the State in which the resolution of ratification is to be submitted to a convention; but the mere matter of cost is not sufficient, Senators, to .Justify us in disregarding the one pledge upon which there was agreement.

You on that side of the Chamber knew at Chicago, when you adopted the Republican platform, if you were as sober then as you are now [laughter]; you on this side knew when you adopted · d · the Democratic platform, if you were as loyal to the will of the people as you ought to be, that there might be some expense incident to carrying out your pledge. You were not children; you did not appeal to the electors of the Nation to give you power and authority without recognizing the fact that in redeeming your pledges the public might be occasioned some expense.

Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Arkansas yield to me?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly.

Mr. CLARK. Does the Senator from Arkansas think there would necessarily be any more expense attached to a convention than there would be in imposing the duty on the legislature of putting in extra time in the consideration of this question?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. No. The whole trend of my argument, if I may style it such, is to show that · you can have a State convention without any great expense to the public. They have two every second year in Missouri that do not cost the public anything, and every citizen, as I have already said, sometime in his life may properly be called upon to perform a public service without exacting pay from the people who honor him.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. FEss in the chair). Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Mon­

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I yield.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I agree with the Senator that the salaries of the representatives would be a rather small matter; but .I thought that I stressed the point that the expense of conducting the elections would be considerable.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. There would . be nothing but the expense involved in choosing the delegates to attend the convention, and we have that at every political convention which we hold. The Senator never went to a convention but that a large number of friends made some sacrifice and got together either at the corner grocery or at the crossroads, praised him for his great abilities and signal powers, and said, " Let us send him on to represent us." They did well, and they ought to do the same thing in the case of a convention called in the States for the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution of the United States and choose able delegates.

In order that there may be no misunderstanding that when you were trying to get votes on this proposed issue you thought, both sides, that a convention as a means of ratification was of vital importance, let me read what was said in the platforms of the respective political parties. I first read from the Democratic platform, as follows:

To effect such repeal we demand that the Congress immediately propose a constitutional amendment to truly representative conventions in the States called to act solely on that proposal. And yet there are Senators here who have said to-day that that was an unimportant declaration, that it was trivial, that there is no obligation to observe it.

I have read the declaration of the Democratic platform. Here is what my misguided friends on the other side of the Chamber said in their convention when they were attempting to get votes on a pledge that it was not necessary to redeem or to keep:

Such an amendment should be promptly submitted to the States by Congress, to be acted upon by State · conventions called for that sole purpose in accordance with the provisions of Article V of the Constitution-

And so forth. I repeat that whatever differences may have existed between the two platforms that is the one subject on which there was complete harmony, and both expressly stated that it was important to submit it to conventions rather than to legislatures.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly, I yield.

Mr. BROOKHART. I suggest to the Senator, since both Republican and Democratic national conventions declared for ratification by conventions, that left no chance for the people who oppose the conventions to express their sentiments.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. No; but it does show, Mr. President, that both political parties thought that the people desired the opportunity of expressing their will on this subject to representatives chosen for that purpose. The fact that both of them agreed to substantially identical language indicates that they thought that it was a popular proposal . and they would get votes by incorporating it in their platform.

There is a great deal that might be said in favor of the convention plan. Representatives in the legislatures are not chosen, as a rule, with respect to any one political issue. Some of them serve for long terms and they may not be responsive to popular opinion.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--

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

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Certainly.

Mr. wALSH of Montana. I rather gathered the impression from the speech of our esteemed friend, the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER], this morning that the whole presidential election was determined on that issue.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. 0 Mr. President, I do not sympathize with that viewpoint. There were many issues in the campaign of 1932, and it is not my opinion that the liquor question was the principal issue in that campaign. I have never believed it, and I do not believe it now. I think there were problems of far greater importance than any associated with the repeal of the eighteenth amendment.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Of course it is not to be understood that I indorse that view, but I do think that when it came to selection of members of the legislatures the question of prohibition had considerable influence.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Does the Senator from Montana mean to say that he regarded the liquor question as the most important question in the campaign of 1932?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. No; I do not agree with that statement at all.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Oh, the Senator agrees with me, I understand?

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Certainly I do. - Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I misunderstood the Senator's statement.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. But in the matter of election of members of the legislatures I think the question of prohibition bad considerable to do with it.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. Let me reply to that.

In the legislatures composed of two bodies, one- half or one-third-it varies in the States-are selected as members of the senate every two years; and there is a strong probability that at least one-half and probably two-thirds of the members of the State senate in every State of the Union, or four-fifths in some of them, were chosen before this issue became acute; and I say now that there is sound sense and justice in preferring to submit the issue to _ delegates chosen with direct reference to that issue rather than to submit it to members of a general assembly who were not chosen with direct reference to that issue.

Mr. WAGNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I yield.

Mr. WAGNER. I do not think it is a fair statement of my observation to say that I stated that the prohibition issue was the dominant issue of the campaign.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. The Senator from New York did not understand me to say that?

Mr. WAGNER. No.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I did not hear the state-­ ment made by the Senator.

Mr. WAGNER. I said it was one of the issues in the campaign, and was freely discussed, and the people did know the issue between the two platforms.

Mr. ROBINSON of Arkansas. I think that is true, and I think the issue was a prominent one. I think in many localities it was given more importance than it deserved to receive; but no one can deny that when the Republicans and the Democrats started out to get votes they agreed on one aspect of the question, and that was that they would give the people a chance to express themselves through delegates chosen for that sole purpose.

I yield the floor.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. President, my observations will occupy put a moment. I am conscious of having taken too much time in interrogations passing between the eminent Senator from Montana [Mr. WALsH] and myself, and, I may add, my interruptions of other Senators upon the legal aspects of the amendment.

It is my purpose to read decisions which I have in these volumes on my desk. I sought · these cases to meet and oppose the expressed convictions of the able Senator from Montana and that of the distinguished Senator, the ex-judge from Nebraska [Mr. NoRRis]. But to conserve time I withhold them for the present. I shall not burden this assembly with reading law books. I rather, for the moment, adopt the expression of Pitt, the second Earl of Chatham, before the House of Commons:

I come not here to read books bound down in dogs' ears; I prefer to address myself to that other-the ears that lead to the heart and mind.

Mr. President, I concur in what all the Senators have said; as to the mere method of how we submit the amendment for repeal is not in itself so very commanding, certainly never to warp the judgment of any Senator or to prevent him from adopting an independent judgment on the larger area of the action to repeal, and complying with the platform in its spirit and direction.

I make bold to call attention to the fundamental doctrine underlying the whole contention as to execution of the platform pledges. When the conventions chose, for the first time in three lifetimes of political history, to prescribe that this remedy of repeal {)f amendment of the Constitution they sought was to be by convention. Sirs, let it be recalled that heretofore rarely had the convention syStem been invoked as the agency through which repeal of an amendment to the Constitution should be adopted. It is significant that the political conventions, made up of eminent men of both great parties-thoughtful men-expressing the concrete judgment arrived at from long deliberations in the years just preceding, made the choice of repeal by convention because they felt this method made more secure their will being executed by that method than by the other. If it had been the purpose to adopt the one or the other as a mere matter of alternative, it would have been easily expressed "convention or legislature." Sir, if it had been with the object of having it by legislature, it would have been expressed "legislature." It can not but impress you that there was a significant object in the mind and some purpose in the resolve, when they found it agreeable to choose, for the first time in a hundred years, in the different political gatherings of our people in America, for repeal, the convention. The delegates elected chose the convention system as distinguished and apart from the legislature. Nor, sir, did they include the legislature, though the method was there provided as an alternative.

Senators, shall we not be frank? What was the reason for the change?-for weighty reason, we can assert, must have been in the mind.

It was that our people in all the States had seen themselves tricked by legislatures. They had watched some, out of corruption, cheat the constituency. They had seen others, in their wild race to other objects of private benefits, exchange one purpose in order to obtain another. The deception had, in different forms, been so practiced upon them that they hastened to adopt some other remedy and some other method than to abide by that from which they had suffered losses and defeats only lately in so many States of the Union. Therefore, the platform provision that commanded the repeal by conventions, we must assume, was adopted by the delegates as a system of their protection, also-for what they felt was a gUarantee of obedience to their command.

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] has made allusion, the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] reference to the matter of party platforms.

Mr. President, I am not always a very sure party man. I have not always supported all people presented upon a label called a political party. I do not accept the idea that there is to be any sacredness attached to the mere fact that these declarations were placed on a piece of paper and sent forth as the declaration of a political party in the form of a platform. I wish it understood that I present the position that when we declared that the repeal should be by convention at the instance of the representatives of the people through their delegates, and they promised the people they would secure repeal by this method, and the people went out and voted affirmatively in support as their direction upon the platform, as must be gathered by the majority and the number selected, it was, as near as we could catch it, a direction. from the people themselves apart from delegates that they desired this method adopted because of some reason wherein they felt more secure and more protected by the method thus proposed than that of the other system they had not endorsed-and the one that which they had not commanded-the legislative method.

Therefore I go further than the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINsoN], my good friend from New York [Mr. WAGNER], or my eminent friend from Montana [Mr. WALsHJ. I hold that as near as we could go to the people, we presented to them a system by which we said this particular relief could be afforded. When they sent, at the ballot box and from it, their decree adopting it, it was the order of the people that the method be employed. It was their direction that this particular system of convention b6l entered upon.

I ask, now has the time not come when some heed should be given to the direction of the people at the ballot box in America as nearly as we can gather their intent? Does the mere fact that we can find specious argument for eluding it, for violating it, or for abandoning it, justify us in doing so? Shall it not be correctly said that the very conditions of our country in this hour, the voiced lack of confidence the American people have in their institutions, the want of faith they have in the courts, the general feeling that there is corruption in all legislative bodies, the conviction that general treachery and deception exists everywhere, and which they hurl in their indictments of public speech and public press against the representatives in all the different degrees of politicallife-I ask, is not all this condition due to the fact that they have ever discovered that legislative agents ever find some way to violate the made pledge on the one hand and disobey the directions of the people on the other?

It may be that some inconveniences attach to _ the fulfillment. Is that a reason for denying it? It must be assumed that the people themselves knew that all the inconveniences which we summon up here were a part of the system they provided. It must be that they felt it all to be a part and-may I add the commonplace word-parcel of that which they tendered to us for obedience; that it all inured within the theory proposed, and it must likewise be assumed that in doing such, and putting such burden upon us, they felt from it all was some greater security, and they looked to it as some extra form of guaranty to them- . selves in adopting and prescribing that system.

Now, Mr. President and Senators, thanking you for your patience and expressing my appreciation, I say it is better that we go to the country in the fulfillment of their direction in any way we honorably and legally can execute it. Better, sirs, this course than that we infuse in their hearts this early, as Democracy enters its inauguration, before the new administration has been sworn in, that the very first act on oU:r part was to find a method to avoid that which the public had directed at the ballot box. The people are seeking reform. They are asking remedy. They pray for salvation. Shall we demonstrate to them, in the very first illustration, - our indifference to the promise we made them on the one hand or, to avoid obedience, set up a wisdom which we regard as superior to theirs, and that we seek to some follow it because speciously, by some construction of what we call the law, we find some other method more to our judgment or to our convenience, or, if I may add the latter, because it may be of less expense?

I can not adopt such, and I pray you to indulge me to say I do not feel that this is an hour, nor is this a day, when we can play with the emotions of America nor that we shall trick the sentiment of mankind. The United States is in a condition at this day when everything that we can do which may invite the confidence of our fellow mankind needs now to be initiated, fostered, and followed. We should go as far as we can to bring back the faith we have lost, even if it shall be at a little expense of more trouble, a little more, perchance, of time. A fulfillment and a keeping faith of a promise will do a great deal to make them feel that all the past is condoned and that the future begins with a brighter morn and a surer day. While the matter may be small, and at present may not be so important to the great humble mass, yet to them let it be seen that there is no attempt to evade or to escape the pledge, but every effort to obey it. This will fill them with a new hope · and new faith that in all other respects they will have the combined support of the legislative body in the fulfillment of all other pledges in perfect faith.

That is what is in my mind that leads me respectfully to insist that, so far as can be, in every manner that may be, we fulfill what the people have directed.

As I conclude, Mr. President, there rises to my mind that there is in the Merchant of Venice, I think, the declaration-

My words gone forth can not be recalled.

Shall I lay perjury upon my soul?

No, not for Venice.

Our answer in this matter at this time ls that our word has gone forth. Shall we lay perjury to our souls? No, not for office, nor for favor, nor for reward, but, in the fulfillment of the solemn duty of the promise, keep the faith that there may be no charge from any source that there is an attempt on the part of this honorable body to violate it or evade it for some ulterior purpose which will be charged against us in an hour when we seek the confidence of mankind in America.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I am going to occupy the time of the Senate but a moment on this question. because it is very largely an academic question, so far as I am concerned.

As to the Republican platform, I disposed of that in the Senate of the United States last June, so far as I was concerned. I was not bound by it, and I think the people disposed of it on the 8th of November. Certainly the Republicans can not be asked to carry out a platform which was rejected in a most decisive way. It may be that on the other side there should be a conscientious feeling that they should carry out the platform upon which they were elected. But, so far as a pledge was concerned, there was no possible opportunity to have any expression of opinion from the people upon the subject, because both parties declared for the same thing, and if either candidate for President in the campaign mentioned it, I have overlooked it. I know that the President elect stated in a New Jersey speech that he indorsed the platform, speaking of it generally, and that he stood upon the platform, but, so far as this particular subject was concerned, I do not recall that it was ever mentioned or discussed in the campaign. I may be in error as to that. Certainly it was never accentuated by the President elect.

Mr. President, what I rose to say was this: My natural predilections were in favor of the convention system, aside from any platform pledges. We had this matter before the Senate when the question of the ratification of the incometax amendment was before us, and we discussed it. We did not adopt the convention system, but it was discussed, and I expressed a preference at that time for that system. But I did say at the time that I thought there were serious objections to it, and the question was, first, of expense, and, second, the delay involved.

I have undertaken to make some estimate of what it would cost my State to hold a convention. It must be remembered that it contemplates a convention to which delegates will be elected, and that there may be a severe contest in the election of delegates in the State, and that it would be a very expensive proposition. I did not feel that I was justified in voting for a new, untried, and experimental proceeding which would be expensive at the best. Secondly, while I am not particularly anxious about action on the eighteenth amendment, and the question of haste does not concern me so much as it does others, yet I do think that when it is once submitted it ought not to be pending interminably, but ought to be disposed of as speedily as practicable, and in as orderly a manner. There will not be any convention system covering the entire Nation, or even 36 States, in my judgment, within the next two or two and a half years. Those were the two reasons why I voted against the convention system, and I felt perfectly free to vote as I wanted to vote, because I was not bound by any platform pledge.

In some respects I like the convention system better, but, as was said by the Senator from Montana, I think that in the state of public opinion now, with the feelings which prevail in the different States, the legislatures will record the sentiments of the people upon this question just as accurately as conventions would.

As to the power of Congress to provide for these conventions , I entertain no doubt that Congress has no such power. When the Congress has designated the body which shall ratify-legislature or convention-it has exhausted its power. It can not enter the State and set up a convention and provide for the election of delegates any more than Congress could enter the State and provide for the call of the legislature and control it. The theory that the Federal Government could enter the State and provide for a convention is violative of the most vital and fundamental principles upon which our dual system of government rests.

I reserved some freedom of action upon another provision of the amendment which I shall discuss later. I only wanted to say that, so far as this was concerned, I agree with the argument of the Senator from Montana in large measure.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President, I feel impelled to say a word before the vote is taken on this matter touching one line of argument made in the usual passionate and forceful manner of the Senator from Arkansas, for whom, of course, I entertain the very highest respect. He called attention to the fact that in the legislatures as now constituted there are probably some considerable number of members who were elected quite a while ago. Undoubtedly that is true, but it will be borne in mind that those are the legislatures to which is to be addressed the question, Shall we call a convention or not? We meet with that objection in any case.

As I pointed out before, the amendment could be defeated by the simple failure of a State to call a convention; that convention must be called by the legislature, and the legislature is made up of men who were elected in the past, and not at this immediate time, after these platforms were adopted. So that in any case we would encounter the difficulty of having the real, essential meat of the thing submitted to a legislature not altogether elected after this matter became ripe.

I observe likewise that the Senator from Arkansas passed off very conveniently the question of expense by comparing the convention to be called with a political convention. Of course, political conventions are held, but without expense to the State at all. We go down into our pockets for those. But they have no validity whatever in law. We could not ratify an amendment by a political convention. We would have to provide for calling an election; we would have to pay the expense of conducting the election; we would have to pay the expense of transcribing the poll lists; we would have to provide for inspectors at the election; we would have to provide for certifying the election; we would have to do everything that is necessary in the election of any officer of government; and all of that costs money in these times, when every dollar ought to be saved that can be saved.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, if the Senate wants to vote, I shall be ready to stop talking any minute; I would rather vote than anything else. But I have been sitting here for two days listening to the debate, and it seems it is to go on probably until the 4th of March without any decision being made. So, since we are not to be able to legislate on the things on which we ought to legislate, I might just as well take some of the time as well as somebody else. Mr. President, if I had not been living during the campaign, but had just come down here from some other planet and had heard the speech of my good friend from New York, I should have judged that there was but one issue in the last national campaign, and that that issue was prohibition; that nothing else was mentioned in any platform; that nothing else was talked about during the campaign.

Mr. President, if that were true, and if that had been the only issue involved, then I think it would follow that those who believed in the platform which advocated repeal of the eighteenth amendment would be in honor bound to take the first opportunity to bring repeal about.

I listened with great interest to the Senator from Arkansas. He referred to the lame-duck Congress passing on this matter. That is one reason why it has seemed to me all the time that we should not be wasting the valuable moments of this session of . Congress in discussing something which is not binding on this Congress, according to the argument of the Senator himself. I take it at 100 per cent that those who want to follow platform pledges are not compelled or bound to carry them out until the people elected at the election go into power. If that principle had been followed, this question would not be before us now.

I concede that the question of passing on the proposed amendment by conventions instead of legislatures has a very cogent argument in its favor. Under ordinary conditions it would be much more impressive, I think, than it is under existing conditions.

A convention thus elected would have but one thing to do, and at the election at which the delegates were chosen there would be but one question involved. It would be in effect a referendum. But those who believe in ratification by conventions, when they commence to study what will be necessary to bring about a ratification in that way, commence to wonder whether they would be justified, under the present circumstances, in providing for ratification or rejection by conventions. ·

Mr. President, we are confronted now with the fact that millions of our people are starving; the Federal Government is almost ready to go into the hands of a receiver; the States are borrowing money by the millions from the Federal Government; counties, municipalities, subdivisions of government are doing the same thing, and if we provide for submission of this question to conventions, we are about to put upon the backs of the taxpayers of the Um1.ed States millions of dollars of expense to carry out this simple mandate.

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. RoBINSON] argued that the expense would be trivial. It has been stated that political conventions do not cost much; that the taxpayers do not pay the expense. That is true. Sometimes the special interests pay it; sometimes the big corporations pay it. The conventions meet and carry out their edict and their will and nominate candidates and adopt platforms that will bring back manyfold the interest on the investments made by those corporations in the conventions.

But that is not so in this case. The people are going to pay the expenses. It will probably be a lively campaign in every State and in every district of the Union where conventions are called. Every dollar of that expense the taxpayers must shoulder. Suppose the State has a convention of 100 delegates. Probably in some instances in some States it will be a convention of 500 delegates. They travel from different parts of the State. They will be paid mileage. They ought to be. They will be paid per diems. They ought to be. Every penny of the expense of their meeting, although it will be short-though if there are many ex-United States Senators in it the debate may be lengthened considerably [laughterJ-is going to be paid by the taxpayers of this country. We have 12,000,000 people almost starving to death, with every State going into debt and very few of them able to balance their budget. I think it is an important thing under the circumstances to take the expense into consideration.

I have great respect for the man who respects his party platform pledge, but of necessity a platform containing many pledges ought to be considered in the light of existing conditions. We can not take up any one of them and say that the country is bound by that particular pledge, or that particular plank was the issue which settled the election. That can not be said about the last election, either. Millions of people cast their votes in the last election who did not know that in either platform there was a provision that the submission of this question should go to conventions rather than to legislatures. I did not hear it discussed, and I listened to both of the candidates over the radio. It may be they discussed it when I did not hear them, but if they did nobody paid much attention to it. It is one of the methods of carrying out a platform pledge.

Suppose the platform provided that the ballots on which the delegates should be elected must be printed on pink paper. Suppose that was argued and seriously contended for, and it was discovered just before the election that we could not get enough pink paper upon which to print the ballots. Would anyone feel in his conscience that he had violated the pledge of that sacred party platform if we printed the ballots on white paper?

The main thing was the question of submission. It is true that in both party platforms it was pledged to be submit ted in a particular way. I do not suppose a single delegate in either of the conventions had his attention called to the difficulty we were going to be in in the way of expenses alone. Many people thought, and some still argue, that the Federal Government should pay the expenses of the conventions, that the Federal Government should hold the election in reality, provide for qualification of voters, and so forth. I do not think anything of that kind would be constitutional, but whoever pays the expense it comes out of the taxpayer in the end. He foots the bill, and he can not afford to do it. While I am on my feet, as I may not talk again on the question, I want to refer to section 3. Section 3 went into the joint resolution because it was deemed by those who framed it that it ought to be there to prevent the return of the saloon. We have heard about it during all the debate in the last four or five years. Everyone who advocated repeal of the eighteenth amendment always prefaced his remarks with the statement," We do not want the saloon back. Nobody wants the saloon back." That has been inculcated in the minds of the American public until, when we mention repeal, unconsciously everyone's mind comes to the point that we can have repeal and not have the saloon.

If we take section 3 out of the amendment, there is no assurance whatever to prevent the return of the saloon. The return of the saloon will come without section 3, in my judgment, just as surely as we adopt the amendment. It will not come in all States, it is true; but it will come in many of the States. We will have the saloon back in business, the thing that everybody from candidates for the Presidency down to candidates for road overseer have denounced and said they would never submit to. As I look at it the only way to keep the saloon from coming back is by the retention of section 3. It was not the intention of the Judiciary Committee that the Congress would necessarily enact any law upon the subject, but if we take away the power of Congress to enact a law to prevent the consumption of liquor on the premises where sold, we have brought the saloon back into existence and there is no escape from it.

Mr. BROOKHART. Mr. President--

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

Mr. NORRIS. I yield.

Mr. BROOKHART. Let me ask the Senator, under the wording of section 3, if the States have concurrent power to regulate or prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors in a saloon, is not that power just as high and just as dominating as the concurrent power of the Congress?

Mr. NORRIS. If the States would enact laws that would prohibit the saloon, Congress probably would never legislate on the subject; but if some of the States did not and other States did, then in order to meet the condition where the saloons came back into operation again in the States that had enacted laws that permitted it, the Congress if it wanted to do so could enact a law that would prevent the consumption of intoxicating liquor upon the premises where sold. If a statute was enacted and later we even permitted it, that would be no reason why the law of Congress should not be effective. One is a State law and the other is a Federal law. But if the Senator were a prosecutor on behalf of the Federal Government under those circumstances and prosecuted me for selling liquor and permitting it to be drunk on the premises where sold, under a Federal law, it would be no defense for me to allege and prove, if I were permitted to prove it, that the State law gave me permission to do the very thing I was doing. I do not believe any lawyer would contend that.

Mr. BROOKHART. If the State had concurrent or equal power with Congress, it seems · to me it would be a defense. If I were prosecuting attorney for the State, then I would not want to yield to the Federal authorities.

Mr. NORRIS. In the case I put, if the Senator were prosecuting attorney for the State, be would be defending the criminal . inal who was being prosecuted in the Federal courts.

Mr. BROOKHART. He would be no criminal under the law of the State.

Mr. NORRIS. That is true, but he would be a criminal under the Federal law. If the Senator will think a moment, he will realize that in the entire history of the United States we have had laws similar to that.

Mr. BROOKHART. But let us take the eighteenth amendment. Under the eighteenth amendment, of course, the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited both by the State and the Nation. The concurrent power there is for the enforcement simply of prohibition. But here is a concurrent power to regulate it and to prohibit it, or not.

Mr. NORRIS. Suppose we take out that provision and suppose the Federal Government has no authority then whatever. Then where would we be? Would it not follow that the saloon would come back?

Mr. BROOKHART. No. I am more favorable to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Virginia [Mr. GLASS], where he proposes to prohibit the saloon and transportation and then gives concurrent power of enforcement.

Mr. NORRIS. This gives Congress the power. It provides that" Congress shall have concurrent power to regulate or prohibit." We can prohibit or we can regulate.

Mr. BROOKHART. But the amendment which the Senator from Virginia has proposed provides that the sale of intoxicating liquors within the United States or any territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof, for consumption at the place of sale, commonly known as a saloon, transportation, and so forth, of intoxicating liquors, are prohibited.

Mr. NORRIS. I am familiar with the amendment. Iremember when the Senator introduced it. It is really an attempt to define the saloon and to put that definition in the Constitution of the United States. I do not think any student of the subject who will think it over calmly will believe for a moment that we can put a definition of a saloon in the Constitution of the United States and properly enforce it. .

Mr. BROOKHART. Have we not done that in section 3?

Mr. NORRIS. Oh, no.

Mr. BROOKHART. It uses the same language.

Mr. NORRIS. No; it will have the effect of keeping out the saloon, keeping out the thing " commonly known as the saloon." What is the saloon? If the Senator will take the various dictionaries and look it up, he will find it is a good many things besides what we are thinking about when we think of the saloon that sells liquor.

Mr. President, I want to say just a few words about what I term this unnecessary delay. For two days we have been considering this matter. We have only a few more days of this session left. Senators refer to the provisions and pledges of the platform of the Democratic Party and of the platform of the Republican Party as being a mandate in this case. I want to invite their attention to the fact that in both of the platforms there are promises that we will help the farmer, there is a pledge that we will help the unemployed, and there are a good many other promises along that line. While we are considering this proposition, which, in my judgment, could just as well have been postponed until the special session, millions of our people are suffering because the Senate of the United States is not acting upon those pledges and upon the greater pledge that must come from every pure heart of trying to help his stricken brethren in the terrible catastrophe in which we find ourselves.

We have 12 , 000,000 unemployed. We have a bill on the calendar that has been there for weeks that we ought to take up and consider for their relief. We have been talking and talking about helping the farmer. The Committee on Agriculture and Forestry has reported to-day a bill on the subject that was one of the pledges in both of the platforms that were taken before the people in the last campaign. remote. The Judiciary Committee last week reported a bill along the same line to give relief, the effect of which would probably be to grant a moratorium to those who own their homes and have mortgages on them. These bills may not bring complete relief. Some of them may be failures. They may be experimental to a great extent , but at least when we are talking about platform pledges we ought not to forget pledges of that kind.

The joint resolution which we are considering now has been before us for two days. Every hour and every minute of the precious time wasted between now and the 4th of March means so much time lost for the consideration of those measures that should appeal to human mercy and human sympathy. There is nothing that ought to be hurried about the particular joint resolution which we are now considering. It ought not to be before us now. It would be all right if we had plenty of time to consider it, but when we ought to be devoting our time to things that are meritorious and admitted by all to be meritorious, and that would have a tendency to relieve the terrible suffering in the conditions under which our people are now living, I do not believe we can excuse ourselves for wasting those precious moments by taking up an amendment to the Constitution which, even if we ever get it past the Senate, it will be years before it goes into effect.

If we do nothing to relieve distress and suffering, the people of the United States will be bankrupt and most of them starved to death before this proposed constitutional amendment will ever become effective. It seems to me to be a sad commentary upon the wisdom of Congress that it should devote time, when time is so precious, to the consideration of this subject that must necessarily retard the consideration of other more important measures which we ought to consider and dispose of.

Mr. BRATTON. Mr. President, I realize as well as does the Senator from Nebraska the urgency of other measures now pending on the calendar, and for that reason I shall be very brief in what I have to say.

Mr. President, I favor the amendment offered by the Senator from Arkansas to submit this proposal to conventions in the several States instead of to the legislatures of the states. In the first place, it conforms strictly to the solemn pledge in the Democratic platform. It may be argued, and it has been argued to-day, that there are practical considerations which should move us to depart from that promise and, instead, to submit the question of ratification to the legislatures. Mr. President, the platform promise of the Democratic Party does not merely declare that this question shall be submitted to conventions in the several States, but it gives the implied, if not the express, reason why that system should be employed. It declares that it shall be submitted to truly representative conventions in the several States called specifically for that purpose, indicating clearly that it was the purpose of those who spoke for the Democratic Party in the national convention assembled at Chicago to appeal to the people of the Nation for their suffrage at the polls upon the definite promise that this important matter would be singled out and set apart from other issues, and would be submitted to representatives fresh from the people, elected upon- the sole, single, and exclusive issue.

It may be said, Mr. President, that that promise was not a compelling or a controlling one, but who can say with justification that if there are 6 planks in a platform, 4 of them are controlling and binding and the other 2 are not? Mr. President, this is a promise that was made by the national conventions of both parties to the electorate of the States. The argument now advanced that there are practical considerations why we should breach that promise, if 3'0U please, makes no appeal to me. Furthermore, as the Senator from Arkansas well said, in reply to the argument advanced by the able Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH], many of those now serving in legislatures in session at this time were elected prior to the platform pledge; and, accordingly, they were not elected, indeed they could not have been elected, with any reference to that promise, either direct or

Mr. WALSH of Montana. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from New Mexico yield to the Senator from Montana?

Mr. BRATTON. I yield.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. The Senator must realize that the same legislature, so constituted, must call the convention if we are to adopt the convention method?

Mr. BRATTON. Oh. yes.

Mr. WALSH of Montana. And they can defeat the proposal by not calling a convention?

Mr. BRATTON. Oh, yes; but there is this fundamental difference: A man serving in the legislature may well say that he has a fixed conviction either in favor of repeal or against it. but that, despite his individual view, he is perfectly willing to submit the question to the people of his State and let them elect their representatives on that sole issue, and if the people differ with him, their will shall be paramount and supreme.