March 19, 1962

The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion of the Senator from Montana [Mr. MANSFIELD] to proceed to the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 29) providing for the establishing of the former dwelling house of Alexander Hamilton as a national monument.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as a preliminary matter, the yielding by the . Senator from Mississippi has been primarily because of the need for and the Jack of a regular morning hour. Certainly the Senator from Mississippi did not anticipate so many Senators would request time, though they were very rightful in requesting it. The Senator from Mississippi has a situation which will compel him to attend a meeting at 2:30 this afternoon, so certainly he will not have an opportunity to complete his . speech even on the major points. Under those conditions, since so much time has passed, I ask unanimous consent that immediately prior to 2: 30 p.m. I may yield to the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON] so that the Senator from South Carolina may make an address, and that I may succeed the Senator from South Carolina without it counting as an additional speech on the pending motion.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Mississippi?

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

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I would have no objection, provided it is understood that the Senator from South Carolina will b2 considered as having made a speech.

Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator from South Carolina would expect that,

Mr. HOLLAND. I have no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection, and it is so ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, in resuming my argument, which I was mak­ · ing on the pending motion last Friday afternoon, I wish to make it clear at the beginning that this is a very, very serious matter to me and to my State. The debate may be long and sharp words may be passed, but I wish to emphasize now that I have the highest of esteem and respect for the sponsors and cosponsors of the proposal. Anything which may be said with reference to them certainly will not impugn their motives or good faith, as responsible Members of this body. Anything which may be said with reference to anyone who makes arguments, including the President of the United States, whose letter has been placed on our desks, certainly will not reflect upon the man or impugn his motives.

· I always uphold the dignity of the position of a Senator or of the President of the United States, regardless of how much I may disagree with his conclusions or think that his proposals are not timely.

Mr. President, I think this proposal, at this time, has no particular need. It does not have any need. The country has many, many, many, many other urgent matters of national and international consequences which are being held up and which do need attention.

I came to the floor of the Senate as a Member more than 14 years ago. Soon after I came to the Senate an argument was made on a poll tax bill.

I remember particularly a speech that was made by the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], who also made such a fine, clear and forceful presentation here last week.

I think in its better sense the motion to consider the joint resolution is purely a political move. It is merely a gesture toward something along the line of a so-called civil rights bill. I remember that the proposal now on the floor of the Senate was circulated among Senators earlier in the session last year by some of the Senate attendants. It was signed without any real deliberation. I think the political situation that is developing for the forthcoming election makes at least a debate in order.

However, I think the attempt is merely the opening gun for a debate upon, and, perhaps the effort toward passage, of a series of proposals regarding the franchise. I do not think one can raise his banner and say, "I want to repeal the poll tax by constitutional amendment" without inviting someone else to raise his banner and call upon men to march under his colors to repeal the poll tax by statutory enactment. I do not think those two could keep the issue to themselves. Someone else would raise his banner and say, "I want to pass a statute regarding the educational requirements for exercising the voting privilege"-a subject which, with all deference to the author, I think is clearly unconstitutional.

Only last week the Attorney General appeared before a committee of the House of Representatives and urged the passage of a bill relating to the outlawing of the literacy test, so to speak, by mere statute, when the Constitution of the United States clearly provides, not once, not twice, but three times, that the determination of voting qualifications shall be solely within the power of the respective States.

As the Senator from Alabama brought out last week, it is very clear from reading the debates of the Constitutional Convention on that amendment that there would not have been any Constitution at that time unless the provision to which I refer had been clearly spelled out in the very face of the ' Constitution itself.

Article I provides:

And the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

That language was adopted by the Original States. The identical language was used in a constitutional amendment more than 100 years later. After more than 100 years of experience with our form of Government and its constitutional operation, when an amendment was before the Congress and the people of the United States, the identical language was adopted in making Senators of the United States elective.

A few years later the identical language was reappraised, reaffirmed, and again finalized when an additional amendment was passed by Congress and adopted by the States with reference to the privilege of voting by women.

It is not an idle act for us to accept a legislative fiat. The debate has already been opened on the proposal introduced by the majority leader, the Senator from Montana Mr. FIELD]. In his remarks at the time he moved to consider the measure, the majority leader referred to the joint resolution as an administration measure. Last week it was referred to by the Attorney General as being a part of the administration's program. So I want to make clear that we have not merely a debate upon a constitutional amendment with reference to prohibiting five States from using an innocent regulation-and that is all the poll tax requirement is-but an issue opening up a debate on the entire subject matter, with all of its ramifications. Not only are we considering proposed amendments to the Constitution, but also, by legislative fiat, we would first declare in the joint resolution that we are going to set the Constitution aside, so to speak, and then pass the joint resolution.

Since the adoption of our Constitution, all of our States at one time or another have carried in their constitutions or on their statute books a poll tax or some form of a property qualification for voting. During that time these requirements have been deleted from their constitutions and statute books by the people of some of the States themselves. It is altogether fitting and proper that these actions be taken by the people of the States rather than by the Federal Government.

It was never expected by the Founding Fathers that the Federal Government should whittle away the rights of the people and of the States either by legislative fiat or by constitutional amendment, although the power, of course, to amend the Constitution is written on its face, as it should be. They recognized in that great convention in Philadelphia in 1787 that in constructing the basic document of our American Government they were making major decisions. They had fought through eight long, bloody, desperate years of war to win the independence of the States and of the people from the British Crown. They knew that they represented States that were absolutely independent and free from any other sovereignty on this earth. The sovereignty of the States was full, complete, boundless, and absolute. Whatever portion of that sovereignty they as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention yielded and gave up to the Federal Government, they gave it up carefully, deliberately, painstakingly, and reluctantly.

They carefully wrote into the Constition section 2 of article I, which provides:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States-

They did not create anything; they clearly reservedand the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. ·

Mr. President, I repeat that last clause:

And the electors each in State-

What electors? We are now talking about an election for Members of the House of Representatives, the same House of Representatives that is mentioned in the resolutionand the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

That can be changed by constitutional amendment, of course, and that is the only way it can be legally changed. However, that is not my point at this moment. My point is that here is a power which was never granted to the Federal Government. It is a State power and a State prerogative to begin with. It was reserved that way in the Constitution when it was written, and it clearly, positively spelled out exactly what the writers of the Constitution meant.

There has not been any real change in that constitutional provision from that day until this, even though we adopted an amendment changing the method of selecting U.S. Senators, and another amendment making women eligible to vote. Those changes did not go to the qualifications, or to the restrictions, or regulations. It involved a recognition of a new group of people as being eligible to vote. It was kept clear and positive and explicit as to where the reserved power and the prerogative power was as to who would be electors. The Congress and the people reached back and adopted identical language for this section that I have read.

So, for two reasons we should not tamper with it. It was a basic prerogative that was preserved and reserved to each State from the beginning,

Certainly by now it has become a binding covenant, a binding principle, that the other States, even though they have changed their own law, will not move into the other States and say, · "Well, you disagree with us. We are going to make you conform tO what we have done in our State."

The second point-and I repeat thiswhich is involved here is that now it is seriously argued—regretfully, of course-and presented to the Senate that we can circumvent this plain, clear, positive basic language in the Constitution by mere legislative fiat, by making certain findings here, as a legislative body, and then outlaw other tests with which we do not agree.

As a matter of naked power, that may be done; but, with all deference, it will never be done constitutionally. It will . never be done legally, as the provisions of this basic law so clearly provide.

This provision of the Constitution means that once the qualifications and the status of the voters have been determined by the States, then the voters' right to cast their votes for Congressman or for Senator is a right dependent upon and guaranteed by the Constitution.

Tampering with the right of the States to levy poll taxes can result in revenue losses to the States. The poll tax is a form of revenue collection used in the five Southern States to help operate their public schools. As we know so well, the Federal Government has moved steadily into many tax fields. Today there is little left for the States.

My own State of Mississippi charges a small poll tax, only $2 per year, and no one can be charged more than $4 or 2 · years' tax, as a voting prerequisite. ·· We hear much these days about balancing the Federal budget. I wish we heard more. However, we should not forget that the States also are having budget trouble. Although the revenue derived from the poll tax may seem to some to be small, it is of substantial importance to Mississippi in the support of our public schools. That is the only purpose for which it can be used. It is one of the few taxes which are earmarked from the beginning to be used exclusively for educational purposes.

With all deference to the advocates of this proposal, I believe that when we get right down to the fundamentals of it, it amounts to a serious assault on the reserved powers of the States. That is the practical effect of it. It is probably due in part to the condition of the times.

I know of no sovereign state in the world today which is shown as little consideration as is a State of the United States in connection with such a vital, fundamental function as determining who shall be State electors.

The proposal before the Senate would sweep away this valuable State prerogative. It is ironical to me that the very States which created the United States of America-this Government which has risen in a short time to assume responsibilities and powers in world leadership-should find themselves so forgotten and so trod down and spurned and under attack here. This is an assault up · on the States themselves and on their reserved privileges.

I may add · with emphasis here that · the effect of legislation of this kind, which reaches in and pulls down and casts aside some of the fragments of power that the States still have, in a move to further weaken and take a way this small amount of power that is left, is an assault on the sound conservative areas of the United States.

I use the word "conservative" in its better sense, to illustrate a conservatism that believes in responsibilities under our great privileges. It does not think of our Government altogether in terms of rights, but also in terms of responsibilities. It is the kind of conservatism that carries with it the idea of fiscal responsibilities; that carries with it the idea of a reasonably strict interpretation of the basic provisions of the Constitution of the United States; that believes that, unless the conditions are extraordinary, something should be paid upon the national debt, instead of merely blindly saying that we owe it to ourselves and that we are paying ourselves the $9 billion of interest; and that carries with it the idea of a responsibility which says we should not casually keep raising the debt ceiling and going further and further into debt for future generations unless it is for extraordinary and unusual expenses which may happen to occur within a particular year.

We believe they are a responsibility, and a conservatism, to which we simply cannot keep adding by increasing the number of Federal programs and the expense which goes with them, without gradually having a nationalized government and a dependent people. I have never made an attack on the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and I do not mean to do so now. However, I learned the other day, during a brief hearing of a subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, that that Department of the Government, 7 years ago, had 43,000 employees and a budget of $1,500 million. Now, 7 short years later-and I am giving round figuresthe Department has some 80,000 employees and a budget of approximately $5.9 billion. Those 7 intervening years certainly have not been depression years. The cold war is in · progress, true; but there has not been a shooting war. Extraordinary, unusual things have not happened. As I understood, there are pending at this session of Congress additional programs which would add, in round figures, $1.5 billion to that budget. Just one item in those pending proposals would add 5,000 employees to that Department. This is simply a graphic illustration of how national programs grow by leaps and bounds, adding to the yearly cost of the Government many billions of dollars.

Furthermore, when we look into the future only a brief span of four more decades, I am told that by the year 2000, at the present rate of population increase, the Nation will have a population of almost 400 million. We must realize that that will mean increased demands upon the services of the Government. The increase in the _ Federal programs, the increased amount of care which will be sought from the Federal Government for existing programs and the host of proposals which are being added every year, will not only make it far more difficult to have anything that is near sound fiscal policies. In my humble opinion, with the increased number of organizations-and I use that expression in its better meaning-with the increased pressures and demands upon Congress, there will be a serious question of the abilitY of representative government to function amid such an enormous population with its increased demands.

So I say that any measure, however good its author may consider its motives-any measure which tends to strike at what little remaining power the States have to regulate their affairs-is an assault on the conservative element, the conservative political forces, and the conservative viewpoint of this great Nation. I use that term in its very best sense. I have not a bit of doubt in my mind that if the so-called voting rights proposal passes, even in the form in which it is presented to the Senate, it will tend to weaken the conservative viewpoint of the Nation, it will prove to be an effective assault on it.

If this proposal ever gets momentum enough to be seriously considered for passage, my humble opinion is that it will be swept aside as the morning dew melts before the rising sun, and this other provision will be substituted, the provision relating to the so-called voting rights and educational qualifications. With all deference, there will be the measure which will become law. Much of the Constitution will be literally swept out of that great document if the Mansfield joint resolution ever passes. With all deference, I think it is a legal monstrosity.

As I have sa-id, in comparing our own States with the new states being created throughout the world, many of the small and weaker states throughout Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere are being given more consideration now than are the States of the United States. W.e are not trying to take any of their powers away.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? ·

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. Does the Senator believe that the poll tax disfranchises anyone in the State of Mississippi?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad the Senator has asked me that question. May I answer with a little background? My colleagues and I have lived in Mississippi all our lives in rural counties. We have been out among the people all those years.

Mr. EASTLAND. Two country boys.

Mr. STENNIS. I am certain in my own mind that the poll tax does not disfranchise a single individual in Mississippi. Anyone who is disabled can get a certificate of exemption. Anyone who is 60 years of age or over, as the Senator knows, is exempt anyway.

Mr. EASTLAND. If the poll tax does not disfranchise anyone, what is there behind the drive to pass the joint resolution except to nationalize elections, destroy the powers of the States, and concentrate power and authority in the Federal Government? It could not be · primarily to protect the voting rights of the people, because the poll tax does not - disfranchise anyone.

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator has correctly stated the point. As I said in the · beginning of my remarks, before the Senator came to the Chamber, I believe this measure and all others which relate to it are politically inspired. It is an election-year activity. There is no emergency. There is no need for such legislation. It has been before Congress during all of the 14 years I have been a · Member of the Senate, and more. The whole effect of the proposed laws would be purely to nationalization of elections.

Mr. EASTLAND. Notice has been given, has it not, that an attempt will be made at this session of Congress to pass other measures which would further nationalize the elections of the Nation, destroy the powers of the States, and concentrate authority in one strong Central Government?

Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is correct. The other bills have been mentioned. One will be offered as a substitute to outlaw the poll tax by statutory enactment. Another one, concerning which the Attorney General has spoken, and which the President mentioned in his state of the Union message, relates to literacy requirements. If either of those was passed , the elections would then be entirely a national affair.

I thank the Senator for his timely questions and the observations which he made.

One further point with reference to the way the States of the Nation are being attacked, are being legislated against, and their powers taken a way. THURMOND Congress is not going to take away any of the powers of the new stat-es which have been created throughout the world; we are trying to help them, to strengthen them. We are trying to give them aid. We are attempting to give them all kinds of privileges in the United Nations. We . have sent them the Peace Corps, and for a long time we have been sending them technicians.

At the same time, Congress is asked to consider measures which would, in a measure, cut the jugular vein of the States of the United States, so far as the fundamental powers reserved to them in the Constitution are spelled out.

Mr. President, I cannot reconcile the two a,pproaches to these two matters. Even though this proposal, as now written, for a constitutional amendment is a legal method, nevertheless in large degree it cuts a jugular vein and strikes down vital power of the States of these United States. Other States have seen fit to change their law, and we may change ours. Thirty years ago we struck out all such requirements regarding taxes, except this little poll tax. But today I plead that Alabama, Mississippi, and the other States in this group should · have the same privilege that the other States have had.

Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will my colleague yield?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HICKEY in the chair). Does the Senator from Mississippi yield to his colleague?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. EASTLAND. It might be legal, but certainly it is not in harmony with our system of government, with its dual functions.

Mr. STENNIS. My colleague is entirely correct. I have already discussed that point, and my colleague has summed it up welL Certainly this measure is not at all in keeping with either the letter or the spirit of this reserved, fundamental power.

Mr. President, further in regard to the poll tax as it applies in the United States, let me state that it has been said here on the floor of the Senate that this measure affects only five States; namely, the so-called poll-tax States. But I respectfully submit to the Senate that we shall go far wrong if we consider that this bill affects only the States which now have poll taxes in effect. In reality, it affects 50 States, because it seeks to amend the suffrage clause of the Constitution of the United States.

I respectfully call the attention of the Senate to the fact that this . is one of the most important and one of the most touchy subjects to be found in our form of government.

Mr. President, earlier I obtained unanimous consent to be excused at 2: 30 from attendance on the Senate floor today, and to have the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. JoHNSTON] then be recognized to speak on this subject, without having that count as a speech by me on the pending motion. I am now .advised that he cannot be in the Chamber at that time. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that at that time the junior Senator from South Carolina [Mr. l may then proceed, instead.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, as I said a moment ago, I respectfully call the attention of the Senate to the fact that this is one of the most important and one of the most touchy subjects to be found in our form of government.

It is a subject matter with relation to ment. which the framers of nearly all our State constitutions and of our own National Constitution have · proceeded with great caution. When they came to consider the subject, almost invariably, instead of vesting the legislative bodies of the government with power to prescribe and control what shall be the qualifications of electors, they dediced that the people, through their organic law, should themselves prescribe those qualifications in their State constitutions.

I desire to make the further point that much more than a matter of States rights is involved. That question is involved, but this issue cannot be dismissed as merely a question of States rights, as such. I think it affects the political integrity of the Nation and the preservation of constitutional government. · It is one of the most serious and far-reaching questions ever to come to the :floor of the Senate. So it is a sad fact that the question has to be considered in a political atmosphere, with various organized groups-pressure groups, and some other groups with :fine intentions, but misinformed-knocking on the door, standing on the steps, we might say, of the major political parties of the Nation, with their demands that this legislation alone be passed at once. I think it is one of the saddest occasions in American history when the Senate of the United States is called upon to pass on this matter under such circumstances.

I do not think it can be dismissed as being merely a matter of civil rights, as such. I know that a great number of us-and, I think, all of us who are opposed to the bill-stand ready and willing at all - times to see that the legal civil rights of all persons are not only recognized, but are protected and preserved. I repeat that this is not merely a matter of civil rights, as the term is ordinarily understood. The ri g ht to vote is a privilege. It becomes a legal civil right if the person meets the qualifications prescribed by law to become a qualified elector. That is the question. The law respects a person and the law protects him, once he has met the requirements for becoming a qualified elector. Mr. President, that matter is something which requires specific definition. Specific instructions as to just where that right began are required in the law. All our State constitutions and our Federal Constitution respect that right and protect it.

Mr. President, I ask that we always remember that we are not now considering a political campaign matter. Here, we are dealing with the Constitution of the United States. Let us also remember that we are dealing with one of the most delicate subjects within the Constitution. I am vigorously opposed to any proposal in the Congress to have the Central Government attempt to prescribe the qualifications for voting. This mat­ ·' ter is a State prerogative, and it should remain such. I have repeatedly expressed the view that even though I am opposed to such action in any form, and by any means, alteration of this fundamental States right can be accomplished only by constitutional amendment. President, let me say with . all due deference to everyone concerned that I believe that basically bound up in this entire matter is the question of the responsibilities of citizenship. I think that for many years we have been gaily going along and, instead of increasing the responsibilities of citizenship in a more complicated society and with more complicated problems to solve, we have been decreasing the responsibility of peoplefor instance, with reference to their own families and their own parents--and we have decreased the responsibility of the local people with reference to their schools, for instance. I think we have sailed along too easily, when we have taken almost everything for granted and have taken the position that, after all, the Government can and will protect and take care of everything and everyone, and that therefore each one of us does not need to save for the education of his children, but that instead, in some way some provision will be made. I think the impact of all s · such developments is to create irresponsibility, rather than responsibility. Whatever curbs and regulations there are-and I would not want many-with reference to voting-and voting is a privilege, not a right, for voting is never a right-the matter of exercising this privilege has become more and more casual and more and more ordinary. That is why I say that instead of removing all these restrictions and guidelines, I think the demand of the time is that we must consider increasing some of the responsibilities and increasing some of the reasonable restrictions.

We are holding hearings now with reference to the need and necessity for further drilling, indoctrinating, and instructing men in the armed services, beyond what they have learned in their homes and schools, whatever training they got in those two places. We are seriously considering the matter of further training them and indoctrinating them in American principles, constitutional principles, and privileges of our form of government, which is what I am trying to emphasize.

We can take care of whatever menace is threatened by the Communists if we can get enough Americanism instilled into the people. The military cannot do it all, either. All this shows that something has been happening to slow down the spirit of responsibility. There has not been a slowing down of benefits coming from our Government in a material way, but it must be that somewhere along the line we have not put enough emphasis on responsibilities. I think the privilege of voting is certainly one of the outstanding responsibilities, and it should be emphasized to our people that it is a privilege, that one must do something to earn it, that he must make some kind of a contribution, perhaps pay a little tax, and register, and must live a little while in an area where he proposes to vote, that there must be some kind of a literacy requirement. I have never gotten away from the idea that a voter should be able to speak the English language.

Instead of building up and emphasizing responsibilities, it seems to me we are taking them away and tearing them down and are saying, "After all, everything is going to be all right. Everybody come in and exercise the privilege of government, and none need carry the responsibilities of government."

This is one reason why there has been burned into my heart and soul the need for some kind of regulation of the voting privilege. I did not have to come to the U.S. Senate to learn that. I have felt it for a long time. As I stated awhile ago, I have spent my life among the people in connection with governmental matters. I do not think there is any quicker way to destroy the fundamental privilege of voting than to make it too easy and too simple and too comprehensive, without any kind of regulations, such as the payment of a $2 poll tax. In some States it is a dollar and a half. In one State it is $1.

The requirement of the payment of a small amount of money of that kind and the requirement of registering are certainly a very, very mild tap on the shoulder, but they carry out the lesson of responsibility.

Mr. President, I was somewhat shocked last week to read in the press that in the last few days the Attorney General of the United States is actually urging the Congress to outlaw the poll tax and curb literacy tests in Federal elections. This incumbent · of the highest legal office of the executive department of the Federal Government, this top lawyer of the Department of Justice, would have the Congress attempt this drastic violation of States rights or constitutional provisions by a simple legislative act.

I can understand why anyone, in his enthusiasm, could get interested in the subject matter and feel he was justified in proposing that, but how one in a high position of responsibility, who had an opportunity to study the plain, simple, basic provision of the Constitutionwritten not just once, not just twice, but three times in the Constitution, reserving tho s e rights to the States-could reach the conclusion, after studying it, and particularly one with a legal mind, is far beyond my ability to grasp. I believe many of these per s ons are overwhelmed b y political consid e ra t ions.

Mr. Pre s ident, this view is well and soundly supported by the constitutional law and history of this country and is certainly recognized as fundamental by those who , in conscience, must be and are guided by right rather than the might of political pressure.

Nevertheless, Mr. President, there are substantial indications that effort will be made in the Senate to attempt a presumptuous repeal of the States' poll tax law and to set up other strictly constitutional voting qualifications by mere legislative act of the Congress.

Mr. President, the real true question involved is whether or not a mere majority of the Congress of the United States has the constitutional authority to prescribe what shall be and what shall not be a qualification for voting in Federal elections.

Not in the attitude of seeking controversy, but in all sincerity, I challenge the proponents of this measure to come into court and state the book and page and line of any respectable legal authority they have, from whatever source, to sustain their position. I invit~ them now and ask them now to bring in the evidence, the legal documentary evidence , from the organic law, or from the courts of our land, which will sustain them on a sound basis. I do not believe they have the power or the resources to do that, and I do not believe they will be able to present respectable authority. On the contrary, there is an abundance of authority for the other side of the question.

Mr. President, this matter has frequently been discussed and I have thing. several times made reference to my impression associated with my visit to the scene of the assembly of the makers of our Constitution.

Several years ago I stood in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. I walked around the Chamber there, remembering that was ·vhere the Constitution of the United States was written. I tried to picture in my mind where it was that Benjamin Franklin sat. I tried to picture where James Madison sat. I thought of the presiding officer, George Washington, and I felt that a political halo hovered around that place. I thought of the great document those men penned there-how, while the world scoffed, they wrote that instrument; and how it has become the object of admiration of all the world; and how we have grown. That towering city of millions was little more than a village then; and I thought how we have grown into a great nation, the most powerful in the world. I thought of the city of Washington, D.C., where meet the political leaders of the world. We control the commerce, we control the finance, we control the shipping lanes. We are actually the capital of the world, and have become such within a short span, only a few years relatively speaking.

Soon after being in that atmosphere of reverence and thankfulness, surrounded in my imagination by these towering patriotic intellects, my thoughts shifted back to the scene of the Senate floor. I picked out in my mind the towering personalities in this Chamber, and compared them in my mind with the patriotic personalities who once stood on the floor of Independence Hall. I can say in all sincerity that they compared favorably in intellect, in intelligence, in attainments, and, more than that, I think they compared well in patriotism.

But, thinking further about the Constitution, it seems to me, Mr. President, with all deference, that, instead of trying to respect a sound Constitution and instead of trying to preserve a sound Constitution, this proposal-with reference to the enactment of a statutory law which would set literacy requirements and other requirements as to voting for Members of the House of Representatives, for Members of the Senate, and for the President-would be, in effect, an undermining, a dissolution, and a destruction of that same Constitution. If such a law should be passed, how could anyone with logic and reason stand on the floor of the Senate and point to any other major provision of the Constitution which could not be undermined? How could one protect the Constitution?

Someone said that we must be practical, and that we must adopt a method that is expedient. Let me quote from the words of George Washington himself. In the Constitutional Convention someone suggested that they must propose an expedient form of government, one which would be adopted and which would be sure to meet the popular approval. Trying to do something that will meet popular approval is not a new I should like to quote what that great man said. When I use the word "great," I reflect that of all the magnificent objects in the city of Washington, the most magnificent to me is the one that is dedicated to the Father of his Country-the Washington Monument. On the floor of the Constitutional Convention, when someone suggested that we must be expedient and must write a document that would be popular and be accepted, George Washington's reply It is too probable that no plan that we propose will be adopted. • • • If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disapprove, how can we afterward defend our work? Let us raise a standard to which the wise and just can repair. The events then will be in the hands of God.

So now, regardless of expediency C?f action and regardless of how popular 1t may be on some fronts, let us here raise the standard to which the wise and the just can repair, and then the outcome will be in the lap of the gods. .

Mr. President, the measure provides very briefly that the payment of the poll tax shall not be a . prerequisite . to voting in elections for President, VIce President, Members of the Senate, and Members of the House of Representatives. The very question has come before other deliberative bodies. We are dealing now with the Constitution. My entire argument will be based upon and centered around the great constitutional questions which arise.

The very subject of dealing with the qualifications of electors came before the Constitutional Convention to which I have referred. The men present passed on it. They included James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington and others. They decided that in our Government we would have a President and a Vice President. They decided further that we would have a U.S. Senate. They decided that we would have a House of Representatives.

The question then arose as to how the Members of the House of Representatives would be chosen. It was a most vital and important question. The members of the Convention decided that they should be elected by the people. Then the question arose-and the question was one of the most serious of allwho shall be the electors? Who shall be the qualified electors?

Three proposals were made. The first was that the question should be left to Congress to decide as to who would be qualified electors. That is the very thing that the bill which was introduced this year with reference to literacy requirements would do. But that plan was rejected. Incidentally, as I recall, the first plan, providing that the Congress should have this authority, had only one sponsor in the Constitutional Convention. Think of it. There was only one sponsor in the Constitutional Convention for a provision that Congress should be allowed to decide who should be qualified electors. Still if the bill were passed-a statutory enactment with reference to literary qualificationsthat would mean the breaking down of a wall of provisions that was erected, and the establishment of a new system declaring who are qualified electors. The same plan that had only one vote in the Constitutional Convention would be adopted now, and that plan would be adopted without being submitted to the States or to the people, but adopted by legislative fiat.

Returning to the Constitutional Convention, the second plan proposed was same? that there should be written into the Constitution itself a definition of who would be qualified electors to choose the Members of the House of Representatives. At that time the Senate was not considered because, as everyone recalls, Senators were to be selected by the States. The second plan was also rejected.

The third plan proposed was that definitions should be written into the Constitution to the extent of saying:

This matter being so important, so highly controversial, we prescribe the rule that in all Federal elections in each particular State, those who are qualified to vote in the most numerous branch of that particular State legislature shall be qualified to vote for the Members of the House of Representatives. Those are the words as to what the plan provided. That is exactly what was adopted after a firm consideration and a sound conclusion. That provision was written into the Constitution itself.

To bring out the point more clearly, I read again the exact words of article I, section 2, of the Constitution:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the Several States, and the Electors in each State shall-

Note the word "shall"- have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Who could argue or imagine that Congress by legislative act could change the term of the Members of the House of Representatives from 2 years to 3 years, 4 years or 5 years? Congress has absolutely no power to make any such change, because the words used are "chosen every second year by the People of the several States."

Of course, we must have respect for the English language. We must respect clear meaning.

We would wander far afield without compass, guideline, or direction. if we wander away from the clear, plain, and basic provisions of the Constitution.

I have not heard anyone suggest that the Congress should have power to pr~­ scribe the qualifications of electors m State elections, or that it should have the power to prescribe the qualificatiOns of electors who are to choose the members of the most numerous branch of the individual State legislatures. I emphasize the point that, as. I understand, no one claims that there IS authoritY in Congress to prescribe who shall be quali- fied electors in the various States m choosing the members of the most numerous branch of their State legislatures. The Constitution of the United States provides that the electors of the U.S. House of Representatives shall be the same as those provided in each State for the election of members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.

How can we change here by legislative fiat the qualifications of electors for Federal officeholders and not at the same time change it for the electors of the State officeholders, when the plain provisions of the Constitution, clear as a bell, provide that they shall be the

If we have no power to change the State list, how do we have that power to change the Federal list of electors, when the Constitution of the United States plainly says that they shall be the same?

With all deference, I do not believe that question will be successfully answered during the course of the debate upon such a bill.

I quote further from the Constitution, section 4, article I, which reads as follows:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections-

Let us get that clear. We are not talking about qualified electors, nor about who shall be qualified electors; we are on another subject entirely.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at . any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to places of chusing Senators. Mr. President, I anticipate that somewhere in the debate upon the Mansfield bill the argument will be made at great length that under section 4 Congress has the authority, and that it has been established by many precedents, to go into all forms of regulating Federal elections, and therefore the argument will be made that that includes the power to go back to article I and change the qualifications of electors. I submit that this would be a mere argument.

However, the provision of the Constitution which applies, article I, section 8, clause 18, reads as follows:

The Congress shall have Power • • •

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers • • •.

The foregoing powers. In other words, Mr. President, if there is no power in article I, section 2-which provides that the list of electors shall be the same-to change the qualifications of an elector, then there is no power to be gained from clause 18. It is possible to revert to that portion of the Constitution and say that under it the power of Congress rises higher there than it does under section 2. Just like a stream can rise no higher than its source, clause 18 can rise no higher than is the grant of power, if any, in article I, section 2.

We come back again and again to the proposition that the Constitution of the United States provides that the qualifications shall be the same for electing members of the State legislature as for electing Members of Congress. Congress cannot possibly have any kind of power to prescribe what shall be the qualifications of electors to elect members of the lower branch of the State legislatures. If that be true-and it is undenied, as I understand-how can Congress, under any clause, have the power to say that the Constitution is all wrong, and that we shall establish a list of qualifications for voters for Members of Congress, and that the State legislatures can do what they please under the Constitution with respect to the qualifications of electors of the lower branch of their legislatures? It is proposed that we shall not . follow the Constitution with respect to the question of qualifications.

Madam President, I do not see how we can pursue such a course; That is why I say that it is not a question of expediency. It is not a matter of what might be proper under certain circumstances. It is a matter of doing something "to which the wise and the just can repair." Those are George Washington's words, not mine. Then, as he says, affairs will be in the hands of Another provision which has a bearing on this question is amendment 10 to the Constitution. We are still talking about powers:

Th'e powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Certainly that means something, particularly when we try to squeeze out an imaginary power from some of the other · clauses of the Constitution, especially when we are pressed because of the expediency of the occasion. We might be inclined to lean over the line a little; but amendment 10 calls us back:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Madam President, with all deference, it is bard to see how language as clear, as positive, and as explicit as that could be so largely ignored in many instances by Congress and by the courts" especially when it is on a plea of being necessary or acting under expediency.

That brings me around to .another proposition. It goes with the idea that 1 was presenting this morning. The trend of legislation, the trend of constitutional amendments is to take away from the States powers and responsibilities, to take away from the State governments responsibilities that are theirs now. _

We have taken away from the people responsibilities that properly belong to them and have been bestowing so many of the so-called benefits on the executive branch of the Government that I fear the burden will become 'SO great that it will not be able to carry the load. I have another observation, Madam President. According to my experience as a public official, particularly in present times, I believe the Federal Government is not nearly as effective in taking care af :some of the problems of government as are the States. In some . cases where the Federal Government goes in and takes power away from the States, they do not do anything about it.

I am going to mention something that I have nev-er mentioned before, as I recall, on the floor of the Senate. I have noticed with great alarm the increasing lawlessnesS which has been built up right here in the city of Washington. I do not want to advertise it any more than it has already been advertised. But the lawlessness and the irresponsibility is already well advertised all over the world. If the representatives of other governments in this country tell their governments back home what goes on-and I a.m. sure they do-l wonder what kind of explanations or what kind of . reports they send home with reference to the lawlessness that we have right here in the District of Columbia.

I have been a law-enforcement officer for a brief time elsewhere. I know that if we turn people loose, whether it is in Washington or Wisconsin or Mississippi or wherever it is, without some kind of fairly strict law enforcement, things are going to run away and things are going to become intolerable.

We appropriate and spend great sums of money for the Voice of America and the Peace Corps. I do not refer to them critically at all. w · e spend great sums of money for good will. We send our technicians to foreign countries. We spend billions of dollars for this work. I think the amount has reached more than $100 billion within the last decade; perhaps a little more. Still, on top of that, we see bur.sting forth this incessant line of increasing violence and criminality right in the Capitol City itself.

Madam President, what kind of report do you suppose an honest ambassador or minister-and I am sure they are all honest--will give to his country with reference to these happenings? My point is that instead of Congress taking more power from the States, we ought to be doing a better job of exercising some of our own direct responsibility. About 10 months ago, or a little less, there was the disturbances of the freedom riders pouring down into Alabama and Mississippi. Pictures were published in the press showing the police in Jackson, Miss., trying to cope with some of the situations. They were using dogs. Frankly, I did not realize they had dogs. However, I had . heard of dogs being used. Upon investigation, I learned that right here in Washington, D.C., the police had been using dogs for some time. I understand the police department is now requesting an increased number of dogs because more are needed.

'Madam President, I have before me a news item published in the St. Louis Globe Democrat of March 8, 1962. The headline .reads: "Criminals Getting Bold-Dogs To Stand Guard on Capitol Grounds."

This dispatch was special to the Globe Democrat and reads as follows:

WASHINGTON.-Crimlnals have become so bold and so cruel in the Nation's Capital that police dogs .are to be used to protect Members of Congress and congressional Staffs entering and leaving the Capitol Grounds.

For years Washington has been a jungle of rapes, murders, holdups, beatings and purse snatchings, but until recently the neighborhood of the Capitol had been regarded as one of the less dangerous areas. Madam President, my point is that instead of Congress trying to take powers away from the States, we had better start at home to attend more to the problems already on our desks. We bad better demonstrate that we understand the present laws and regulations before we seek to change the laws of the States. I continue to read from the article:

In recent months, however, criminals have invaded the neighborhood. Their most l'e­ cent victim is Representative MARTHA GRIFFITHs (Republican), of Michigan, whose purse was snatched in daylight near the Senate office building.

Thieves have even made their way into congressional offices. Senator MARGARET CHASE SMITH (Republican), of Maine, found when she wanted to see ceremonies for Astronaut J'Ohn Glenn on her office television set, it had been ' Stolen.

Thefts of typewriters from the Senate Press Gallery also have been reported.

Dogs from the Police Canine Corps were added to the police squads at the request of the Congressional Secretaries Club .

Madam President, think of that. Let me repeat it:

Dogs from the Police Canine Corps were added to the police squads at the request of the Congressional Secretaries Club.

Here we are debating the question of regulating the voting franchises in Mississippi and Alabama, while the activities I have just cited are taking place on Capitol Hill, a place over which Congress has clear jurisdiction. T.here is nothing in the Constitution which would create an obstacle for Congress in that respect. Yet we seek to tell others what they should do, when we are leaving our own backyard .in this dangerous condition.

Women workers · at the Capitol-

That means this Capitolnow may have police escorts to and from their cars upon request.

Madam President, I certainly did not know that. According to this report, young women who work at the Capitol may now have police escorts to and from their cars upon request. I know nothing more about it except that the inference, it seems, is that young women feel unsafe without such assistance, and have been notified that any woman working at the Capitol who feels unsafe in going !Tom her .desk to her car or her office may call upon the police, and an escort will be provided. I continue to read: ·

The dogs were ordered after robbers adopted a new technique-killing their victims to insure against identification instead of beating them or stabbing.

Last Saturday night, a Washington concert musician was bludgeoned to death ln a fashionable neighborhood ' by killers who got only a few dollars from their crime. ·

Madam President, some things have happened in my State, as I suppose they have happened in other States, of which I am not proud. We always want to improve conditions. But incidents such as those I have just recited do not happen in Mississippi. They never have been happening there. I do not believe there is any kind of threat to any secret-ary in the Mississippi State Capitol or any other office building or any other place where, regularly, .she must consider whether to call for a policeman to escort her to or from her work. I do not believe such a thing is true in any State which the prop.osed legislation is .seeking to reform.

Madam President, I make this predicti-on: . I do not believe Congress will come to grips with this problem in Washington, because running through a11 of it is the racial question, the so-called civil rights matter.

Think of it: A musician bludgeoned to death; women assaulted and insulted right here on the Capitol grounds, 1!1 the Federal Capital, the capital of the world, as I said a while ago. All these happenings have occurred here.

We are told that the young women who do our offi.ce work cannot leave to go home in safety. I do not know of my personal knowledge that any of them has requested an escort, but I know that after Representative GRIFFITHS had her experience, and others whom we have read about on Capitol Hill, whose names I cannot recall just now, had theirs, protection has now been afforded.

Madam President, I do not like to bring such matters as this to the floor of the Senate. Senators have never heard me discuss this subject before. But it is very pertinent to the subject under discussion. As a Member of this body, I am sick and tired of hearing these demands repeated every year, at every session, to pass legislation directed at some other target. Let us start at home and see SE. what can be done.

I have before me an article published in the Washington Post and Times Herald of March 17, 1962. I dislike to advertise these happenings, but they are a part of the picture; they form the background. If accurate reports of Washington are being sent all over the world, then every government around the world is being advised of these conditions. The headline of the article reads: "Violence in the Streets. Woman Is Robbed, Severely Beaten in Series of District of Columbia Assaults, Thefts." The article reads:

A Northeast Washington woman was 'beaten and robbed of $150 in cash and fire $1,000 savings bonds in one of a series of robberies and assaults yesterday.

Bernice Kelly, 47, of 236 Massachusetts Avenue NE . , was struck in the face repeatedly last night until she surrendered her purse at Third and Fourth Streets NE., police said.

Mrs. Kelly, a reservations clerk at Union Station-

That is only a stone's throw from the Capitolwas admitted to Casualty Hospital in serious condition with a possible concussion, cuts, and bruises.

Alexander M. Simpson, 71, of 1630 R Street NW ., told police he was knocked down and robbed yesterday afternoon in the lobby of his apartment building.

Two assailants took his wallet containing $8, he said.

Allan Hustack, 17, listed at 1630 Park Road NW., was severely beaten in front of his home last night by six youths, police said. Hustack was taken to Washington Hospital Center.

Madam President-

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. NEUBERGER in the chair). The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. Let me say that just a little before dark yesterday evening, my wife said she wished to walk to the corner to mail a letter. But I said to her, "Don't go; you can't take that chance."

I now read further from the article to which I have been referring:

Margie Mae Johnson, 36, listed at 241 35th Street NE., told police her purse was stolen by a youth who struck her on the head with a stick on a parking lot behind a Giant Food Store at 3924 Minnesota Avenue NE. She was treated at District of Columbia General Hospital.

Evidently that lady went there, purchased her groceries, went out to get into her car, and was knocked in the head.

I read further from the article:

Daniel Murray, 28, of 1214 Penn Street NE., said he was knocked to the ground near his home by three men who took his billfold containing $2. He was treated at Casualty Hospital.

Homer D. Colbert, 13, of 600 Kensington Place, said a man punched him in the face and stole his transistor radio as he was standing at South Dakota Avenue and Kennedy Street NE.

Katherine Bateman, 48, of 5221 Fisher Drive, Temple Hills, Md., told police someone took a wallet containing $150 from her purse, which her daughter, Ginger, 13, was holding as they were shopping in a store in the 1100 block of G Street NW.

Ronald Stewart, 13, listed at 1536 D Street SE., said a youth took more than $20 from him in front of 1820 Independence Avenue Sandra Moss, 22, listed at 3725 12th Street NE,. told police her purse containing $2 was stolen by two youths in the 100 block of Perry Street NW.

Madam President, all that is set forth in just one article in one morning newspaper. I do not know whether the article gives the complete list, but it is part of the picture.

Madam President, I was not in the city of Washington the week before last; but when I returned, there was much talkon the radio and elsewhere-about a bus driver who was attacked at 11th and U Streets. I now read from a reportas published on March 12 in the Washington Post-on that attack:

"I THOUGHT ONE OR Two WOULD HELP ME"­ HOODL UMS BEAT AND ROB Bus DRIVER AS 30 PASSENGERS WATCH PASSIVELY

(By Gerald Grant)

Half a dozen young toughs beat up and robbed a bus driver at 11th and U Streets NW ., early yesterday while about 30 passengers sat idly watching.

D.C. Transit Driver Page M. Powell, 30, of 6920 Parkwood Street, Hyattsville, said no one made a move to help him as the gang pinned him against the window, struck him in the face with their fists, tore off his shirt pocket containing about $30, and snatched away his change carrier.

Nor was there any offer of assistance as the gang ran off leaving him bruised and bleeding, Powell said.

"I don't know why it was," said Powell. "Even though I am of a different race, I thought one or two of them would come to help me."

The youths did not show any weapons. Five of them boarded the bus, a sixth refused to pay his fare, and · then six more shoved their way onto the vehicle and started swinging.

The proprietor of a nearby delicatessen called police. · A second bus was summoned. When it arrived Powell asked a half dozen passengers if they would give their names as witnesses.

They just shook their heads, Powell said, and got on the second bus. Finally a 17- year-old boy, seeing that no one else responded, stepped down from the second bus and gave his name.

Deputy Police Chief Edgar E. Scott expressed shock at the incident.

"We can't provide law enforcement in this community unless the citizens want it," Scott declared. In this case, he said, it seemed they didn't.

Powell could describe only one of the six assailants, all Negroes. He said the youth was about 16 years old, short and slight, wearing a green army field jacket.

So far as I know, I believe that account covers the matter. Certainly I do not wish to omit anything of importance in that connection, although at this time I do not have time to discuss the more recent developments with reference to that case.

I did hear on the radio an editorial statement in which an attempt was made to point out that the matter was not nearly as bad as it seemed; and it was stated that only 15 persons were on the bus, and that therefore only 15 refused to give their names and addresses or to intervene in any way on behalf of the bus driver.

Madam President, as I have stated, I am not attempting to advertise these things; but they are well known. They are facts of life; but I do not believe Congress will adequately cope with this problem.

I have tried to find whether someone would propose that something be done about these matters. I hold in my hand a report in that connection. A gentleman at the Department of Corrections said, in referring to these matters:

They are merely racial overtones of a cultural nature.

Madam President, I do not see anything cultural in the matters I have been discussing. So that gentleman must have been referring to something else.

It is stated that he also said: that · this trait was first known in the early Irish and the Poles of a few generations ago. He spoke further along that line, and concluded by saying:

I fear it will get worse before it gets better. Madam President, if that is the only remedy we shall have and if that is all that these people will be told about how to cope with this situation, I am sure things will get much worse before they get better.

I deplore this situation. I have been thinking that certainly some steps would be taken to correct it, for that can be done, I know; and I know from experience with these matters that they can be dealt with in a very humane way, but also a very necessary way. But certainly a penalty must be applied to such conduct, and that fact must be well known and well advertised. Some sort of penalty must be imposed, and there must be some kind of responsibility in connection with such matters. But today we are not coping with them. By means of a few instances of this sort, if they continue over the years, we shall be doing more to ruin our reputation in world opinion than we could accomplish by all the good we could do in other ways and all the money we could spend.

The platforms of the two political parties contain high-sounding and resounding words; but in this case it is proposed that by legislative fiat the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States be abandoned.

Madam President, I have great respect for the press; but in the press it is said that all of this is tied in with the civil rights bill, and that only a few Southern Senators are talking for the RECORD, so the folks back home will think they are doing a great deal to protect them.

Madam President, there is not a word of truth in all such mush. This matter has gotten down to the very fundamentals of life; but we, as part of the Government, are failing to cope with such problems, even though our duty is plain and our responsibility is great and our power is unlimited. Instead, Madam President, we are talking about taking some little power from a State-some power to regulate the exercise of the voting privilege-for it is not a right-that goes with citizenship in our great Nation. It does not take any prophet to foresee that this will all be discounted as merely the mouthings of a southern Senator.

I am no wise man, but I believe I have been talking about fundamentals. I have been talking about fundamentals of human nature and fundamentals of government for which there is no substitute.

So my plea is for responsibility to again take a front seat. My plea is for proper penalties; for conduct in human affairs here in the city of Washington, and elsewhere, to be given its proper place.

My plea is to get down to fundamentals and to use the power we already have, unmistakably and clearly, before we try to take some power away from a State of the United States under the guise of civil rights or of liberating someone.

My colleague and I have already expressed ourselves on the :floor. In our humble opinion and on our honor, this little old poll tax does not prohibit anyone from voting in our State. It is a reasonable regulation of the use of a privilege, and I want it applied to all the people, whatever the color of their skin, because I know something along this line is essential for sound government. We have our shortcomings, but what State does not? I tell the Senate right now that this Congress has more things to do than to use up this time and delay important matters in order to pass on this relatively small, and by comparison, insignificant problem, if it is a problem, which is already being handled in a pretty fine way by the States.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. Yes; I am glad to yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator has depicted at considerable length, and with accuracy, the troubles in the field of law enforcement in the District of Columbia, the government of which is committed to Congress. Has the learned Senator from Mississippi proposed any laws or statutes by which this situation would be corrected or cleared up?

Mr. STENNIS. No; I have not. I have not made a special study of it. My impression would be that we already have enough laws on the books. That would be my general impression. I read that one judge said something about penalties. I do not remember his exact words. I simply do not believe that, as a matter of Federal law, the problem can be taken care of. I read where _ the official said the si - situation was going to ~t worse before it got better.

There are many things I have not been able to correct. The Senator from Florida has some matters in his State that need attention. There is some movement on there about reapportioning, so there may be better representation in the big legislature in his State. That is a live question in my State, too. I have not solved it in Mississippi. I do not know if the Senator from Florida has solved it in his State.

My point here now is that we had better attend to matters closest to home; that we do not use the Federal power that we have nearly as well as the States do; that - before we take away their power, we had better attend to matters here.

I am not indifferent - to crime in Washington. I am ashamed of it. I am a taxpayer here. I have a home here, as well as one in Mississippi. I am proud to be a property owner here. If things keep moving on as they are where I do live here, I am going to get out, because I do not think it will be safe.

I wish to continue now with my prepared text.

Inasmuch as this question was one of the most delicate and one of the most controversial questions which came before the Constitutional Convention, and inasmuch as those men of intelligence, information, and learning were passing on that matter, and were passing in a most serious way upon the vital question as to who shall be a qualified elector to vote for Members of Congress, when they finally settled on these words, "And the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature," certainly are we not sure in our minds that they knew exactly what they were doing and knew what they were saying? They w-ere not trying to write new language. They were not trying to give an imaginary meaning to the word "qualifications."

I shall be able to show later that the word "qualifications" runs all the way through the law. These men were not trying to write new language. They were creating a new government. They were prescribing one of the most serious tests that was to be laid down. They were prescribing who should be the ones qualified to choose the Members of the House of Representatives.

We know that they used that word advisedly, with all this mass of information before them, and we know they gave that word a practical meaning and a legal meaning. The law was full of Now, later, on some kind of theory, and merely because we do not believe a poll tax should be required, can we in good conscience say that we do not believe the payment of taxes, poll taxes or any other kind of tax , was intend~ to be included in the word “qualifications”? As I see it, that is the only point of argument that the opponents of this measure could possibly have, and the door is absolutely closed in their face by the words of the Constitution.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. I would like to make it very clear, as one of those who propose the poll tax amendment, that I agree completely with the Senator from Mississippi that the word “qualifications” in the Constitution does embrace such things as poll taxes, payment of property taxes, and the ownership of property. It is for that reason that we propose dealing with this matter, not through statute, but by the enactment of a consitutional amendment. It is not our view that the framers of the Constitution 175 years ago had any greater experience, learning, or understanding of the problems of today than do the men who sit now in the Senate and the House of Representatives. My feeling is that the exact opposite is true.

I have not heard the Senator even question the fact that a proposed constitutional amendment is the only legal way to change the poll tax requirement. Is that his understanding?

Mr. STENNIS. That would be a legal way, clearly so, I think, but, at the same time, it would be an invasion of the reserve powers that were considered, weighed, recognized, and allowed at the time of the Constitutional Convention. They have been kept all these years by at least some of the States, and even though many of the States have changed the law somewhat. My State changed the law about property taxes and provided that there should not be that requirement; but the whole spirit and letter of the entire sentiment was that the matter be left to the States to make these changes when and if they saw fit.

The Senator from Florida and I have discussed this question before, many times. I fully appreciate the Senator's feelings. He will not join in voting for a statutory enactment which would invade his understanding of the Constitution. I know he means it when he says it, but I believe the Senator has put up his banner and has asked everyone who believes as he does to travel under his banner. Some other Senator will put up another banner, and will ask everyone to follow him under his banner. The Senator from Montana wishes to fly a banner which involves a statutory enactment.

The fat is in the fire. The opening of the whole question has started, and the Lord only knows where it will end.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Is it not true that the · adoption of the woman's suffrage amendment, from the standpoint of the distinguished Senator, marked the change of the constitutional requirement in this field?

Mr. STENNIS. I do not think it touched on the question we have before us now, other than to reaffirm the original language. That constitutional amendment created a new group of people to whom the voting privilege would apply. Those people then came under the existing law, exactly like everyone else. The law applied to the ladies, and very properly so. They were a new group, an entirely new group, and - applicable law was left as it was, and reaffirmed. I think there is a fundamental distinction.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does the Senator know that each of the 14 States which existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution has knocked out every single one of the restrictions and limitations upon voting it had at that time?

Mr. STENNIS. I know, as I said before, that the trend has been to remove the restrictions.

Particularly in view of the fact that these are so slight and so small, merely a regulation and thought by those people to be necessary, it doeS not behoove the Congress to go sniping over into the States on these matters which are so delicate and sometimes so difficult to handle.

We should let the States, in their conscience--the people of the States, in their conscience and their judgment-take such action as they wish.

Mr. HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.

Mr. HOLLAND. Does the Senator think that the people and the representatives of the other 45 States, all of which have completely eliminated material restrictions on voting, should sit idly by, if in their judgment and their conscience results are flowing out of the poll tax requirement in the five States which have poll taxes which are not conducive to the welfare of the United States as a whole, not conducive to the honor and standing of our Nation in the sight of the world, and not conducive to . the expression of a representative verdict, representative of the entire people in each of the five States in which these poll tax requirements exist?

In short, does the Senator think that the representatives of the other 45 States should sit idly by if in their conscience they should take action? I suppose every one of us is entitled to the belief that he is acting according to his conscience and conviction. If in our conscience this procedure is not working out soundly, does the Senator not believe we have the right-and that it is indeed our duty-to recommend a change, in the clearly legal and constitutional way, which would be accomplished under the proposed constitutional amendment?

Mr. STENNIS. I say to the Senator the matter purely of conscience is a personal matter, and one . must leave that to each lady or man. I ath willing to do I am talking about the question of judgment now, and the question of sound government. I consider myself to be not a wise man but one who has had a little experience. I do not yield to tlie Senator from Florida or to any other Member of this body in the least bit as to what I believe to be sound, elemental, and fundamental with reference to the affairs in my State. I am a product of more than 30 years of dealing with the problems, at . the elected level.

Mr. HOLLAND rose.

Mr. STENNIS. I know the experience the Senator from Florida has · had. I have heard of it many times. I am talking about my qualifications as a witness, as an humble witness. I believe I know more about Mississippi and its problems, and about west Alabama, also, because I have practiced law there, than the Senator from Florida or anyone else who has not had any direct responsibility or who has not lived there and has not wrestled with these problems through the years.

Mr . HOLLAND. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. STENNIS. I am glad to yield.

Mr. HOLLAND. First, I wish to say that it would not for a moment occur to me to question the soundness of con .. science or the deepness of conviction of the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. I understand.

Mr. HOLLAND. I know the Senator has both conscience and conviction. I respect and honor him for it.