March 21, 1962 (4)

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. ELLENDER. Mr. President, the . question at issue has been discussed by this body on many occasions. As a matter of fact, I covered the ground in 1938. after I had been a Senator for only about a · year. and I engaged in my .first long debate.

Once again a small group of us stand before the Senate in an attempt to halt a further move to gnaw away at the founding precepts of this Nation-the sovereign and precious rights of the individual States.

Today we see a blatant attempt to push down our throats a piece of legislation which would be the opening foot in the door to establishing Federal voting requirements.

This move, in the form of an amendment to a noncontroversial measure, would take away from the individual States the rights to .charge a. poll tax; then I fear a move to write in educational qualifications would be presented, to be followed by other moves designed to further weaken the rights of the individual States to set forth their own voter qualifications. Some Senators may ask why I oppose this measure when my State of Louisiana does not charge a po11 tax, · but has other qualifications covering other aspects of a citizen's right to vote. Mr. President. the poll tax issue is not the whole story. At stake is po , t whether the State of Alabama should charge $1 50 poll tax. The issue before the Senate today is whether the Federal Government shall have the power to tell the State of Alabama, or the State of Louisiana, or the State of New York what its voting qualifications shall be, down to the crossed "t" - and dotted "i.".

The . debates of the constitutional drafting period show very clearly that if the right to determine voter qualifications had not been left in the hands of the individual sovereign States, the Constitution never would have been ratified. I believe that in the past this question tion. has been discussed thoroughly. There is no doubt that our early history shows that from the time of the creation of the Colonies and before we became the United States, even the Colonies zealously guarded their right to fix the qualifications for voting. At the very beginning there were all sorts of qualifications. instance, in the State of Georgia a citizen could not vote if he belonged to the Catholic Church. In New York, Jews were prevented by statute from voting. There were many other qualifications of a similar nature throughout the Colonies. Those qualifications were aside from proper , ty taxes or, at least, the ownership of property as a requirement for the right to vote, or the imposition of some kind of poll tax. So such taxes have been imposed as a condition for voting from the early formative period of our Nation. They were continued in effect when the Colonies became the United States.

Mr. President, as I have just now pointed out, some of the main debates regarding ratification of the Constitution centered around the proposition of whether the Federal Government or the States should fix the qualifications for the right to vote. Judging from the debates which then occurred, there ls no doubt that if it had not been for the . fact that the States reserved to themselves the right to provide for the qualifications of voters, our great Constitution never would have · been ratified.

Section 2 of article I of the Constitution provides:

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

Section 4 of article I of the Constitution provides:

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 the places of choosing Senators.

Mr. President, I have no apologies to offer when I say that on several occasions in the past, when there was introduced a joint resolution dealing with abolishment of the poll tax, I thought the manner in which the · distfniufshect Senator from Florida desired to settle . the question was a proper one, and on two -or three -occasions I joined him in sponsoring such a measure. . But · in so ­ doing, it was my hope and belief that" that would be the end of all civil rights legislation. However, now we are faced with a situation which could · see the opening gun in a battle to abolish all rights of the States to set forth voter qualifications.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, wi11 the Senator from Louisana yield for a question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Louisana yield to the Senator from Florida for a question?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a ques­

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate the fact . that on several occasions the Senator from Louisana joined me in sponsoring such a measure; I wish to ask him if it is true that he joined me as a cosponsor of this measure or a similar one in the 81st Congress, the 82d Congress, the 83d Congress, the 84th Congress, and the 85th Congress.

Mr. ELLENDER. I am sure the Senator from Florida is correct. I did, and I have no apologies to make for doing so. But the Senator from Florida may recall that I often expressed the hope that passage of the legislation he refers to would be the end of all civil rights legislation-in other words, that if we passed legislation providing that payment of a poll tax is not a condition to voting, that would be the end of such matters. I said that with that understanding, I was willing to follow that course.

However, as I have said before, I have been in the Senate for 26 years, and I do not know of one session in which Senators were not confronted with some type of proposed civil rights force legislation affecting the right of Negroes to vote. Furthermore, during the past 26 years, Congress has passed many measures which to some extent, have clarified the ways and means by which citizens would be permitted to vote. So, in my humble judgment, we need simply to have enforcement of the laws which now exist covering the field of voting rightsnot only the Federal statutes, but also State laws.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from Louisiana yield again tome?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield for a question.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator from Louisiana spoke of giving the Negroes the right to vote. Is it not true that this proposed constitutional amendment applies equally to white people and to colored people-to all the citizens of the several States?

Mr. ELLENDER. Yes; but primarily it is being brought about to satisfy a few minority groups, including Negroes. That is whY some Members of Congress each year come forward with some new type civil-rights legislation. I feel definitely now that nothing will ever satisfy these Members in their desire to attract support of minority groups. It is true that in the State of Louisiana there have been quite a few parishes in which there has been considerable objection to the registration of Negroes. The simple truth is that in four or five of our parishes, over 70 percent of the population are Negroes; and, · of course, the whites have tried to protect themselves from the possibility of the election of Negro officials.

But, Mr. President, conditions all over the South have changed. I feel confident that conditions affecting equal voting rights would improve if only we were let alone. That is why I no longer support measures designed to d,o away with the poll tax by Federal legislation. Many persons are advocating . these . measures merely to satisfy just a few minority leaders in their States. As I said earlier, if we did not have so much agitation in the South from the North, it is my firm belief that the Negroes in the South would fare much better. As a matter of fact, I have had occasion to talk to many Negroes who had wandered from the South to the North; and on many occasions they admitted they were always better treated in the South than they were in the North. I am satisfied that conditions would be progressively better if the matter were left in the hands of those who had the problem directly confronting them. These agitators will never be satisfied, and I intend to oppose them with all the strength at my command. I now return to my prepared text. . . · Mr. President, there are also the two amendments which have to some extent COntracted the otherwise unqualified right of the States, as guaranteed in . section 2 of article I, to establish the qualifications of voters. I refer tq the 15th amendment, which provides that a citizen of the United States may not be denied the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; and the 19th amendment, which establishes the same protection against discrimination based on sex. And then, of course, there is the 17th amendment, . adopted in 1913, whereby the right of the States to establish the qualifications of electors was again reaffirmed, this time with respect to the choosing of U.S. Senators.

Mr. President, our Nation has profited greatly from the rich heritage of learning left to us from the great constitutional lawyers of years gone by. One of the greatest of those illustrious pioneers of American constitutional history was George Ticknor Curtis. Mr. Curtis' name will live forever in the annals of American history, for many reasons; first and foremost, of course, because he was the author of two monumental works; the first, which was to become a standard authority, ranking alongside of Justice Storey's "Commentaries on the Constitution," was published in 1854 .in two volumes and entitled "History of the Constitution of the United States.” The second of this great constitutional lawyer's legal compositions was entitled “Constitutional History · of . the United States,” published in 1896, 2 years after his death .' Mr. Curtis also will be remembered by students of American history for . his able and successful defense . of President Andrew Johnson in the impeachment proceedings instituted against the American Chief Executive in 1867; George Ticknor Curtis is remembered, too, for the brilliant and cogent argument he presented to the U.S. Supreme Court on . December 18, 1856, in the famed Dred Scott case.

During the course of his presentation to the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott c · case, Mr. Curtis made this significant statement as a preface to his analysis and interpretation of the constitutional provisions in issue in the Dred Scott case-that is, the provisions of our Constitution relating to the status and government of American territories:

· I wish, in - the nex-t place, to say, may it please your Honors, what indeed is obvious to every one-that this is eminently a historical question. But I shall press that consideration somewhat further than it is generally carried on this subject, and much further than it has been carried by the counsel for the defendant in error; for I believe it to be true of this, as it is of almost all questions of power arising under the Constitution, that when you have once ascertained the historical facts out of which the particular provision arose, and have placed those facts in . their true historical relations, you have gone far toward deciding the whole controversy. So true is it that every power and function of this Government had its origin in some previously existing facts of the national history, or in some then existing state of things, that it is impossible to approach one of these ques- , tions as one of mere theory, or to solve it by the aid of any merely speculative reasoning. Hence it is eminently necessary on all occasions to ascertain the history of the subject supposed to be involved in a controverted power of Congress, and, above all, to approach it with the single purpose of drawing that deduction which the constitutional history of the country clearly warrants. ("Constitutional History of the United States," George Ticknor Curtis, P. 502.)

Mr. President, keeping these words of George Ticknor Curtis in mind, I shall ask the indulgence of the Senate while I embark upon the task of reviewing the circumstances surrounding the genesis of the constitutional provisions at issue in the right-to-vote legislation now before the Senate. It is with the utmost humility that I undertake the enormous assignment of refreshing the memories of Members of the U.S. Congress, and the public at large, with the historical backdrop against which the language of article I, sections 2 and 4, of our Constitution was framed.

It was no easy job, I can assure Senators, to research and assemble the vast amount of data that I am about to present to the Senate. It was a monumental task, but it will be well worth the effort if it helps to awaken in Senators a better understanding and awareness of the precarious, perilous ground we are about to tread upon-to point up the misguided, imprudent, unwise course that is being urged upon us.

It is sheer folly, Mr. President, for the Congress of the . United States to seek to enact laws aimed at undermining and destroying our one great constitutional bulwark against despotism-Our _ time-tested system of local elections . controlled and operated by · the 50 sovereign State governments, . free from coercion or subversion from a Federal bureaucracy. Heaven help us if this precious birthright is lost forever to us and to our posterity because we here today are unable to distinguish between political expediency and commonsense.

Mr. President, a study of colonial history reveals that regulation of suffrage was one of the first tasks to concern the American pioneers. From their inception, the colonies maintained qualifications of voters. As I shall point out during the course . of these remarks, when the colonies formed the Original Thirteen States of our Union, they still jealously and zealously guarded their right to prescribe qualifications for . voting. Even a cursory reading of the discussions that took place during the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia, and of the debates in the . Thirteen States · while the proposed Constitution was up for ratification, leads to the inescapable conclusion that a majority of the Thirteen States would never have formed a union and bound themselves under the Federal Constitution if clear and unmistakable language had not been included to guarantee to the respective States the right to establish qualifications of electors. Nor is there any doubt, Mr. President, that the Thirteen Colonies did not intend to surrender to the Federal Government their primary right to control the time, manner, and places . of holding elections; all evidence points to the unmistakable conclusion that they intended to vest in the Central Government only secondary authority to regulate elections, limited to those situations in which extraordinary · Circumstances preva.iled or when th~ States refused to · conduct elections for Members of the House of Representatives and thereby threatened the very existence of the Federal legislative branch.

Later during these remarks I shall discuss more fully the meaning given to section 4 of article I by the framers of our Constitution. Now I want to direct the attention of Senators to the interpretation placed by our Founding Fathers on the language found in section 2 of article I-the requirement that "the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." As early as 1750 there were different qualifications for voting in the different Colonies. I quote from · "Formation of the Union," 1750-1829, by Hart, page 15:

In each there was an elective legislature; in each the suffrage was very limited; everywhere the ownership of land in free-hold or other . property, or ~he occupancy of a house 'VIas a requisite, just as it was in England for the country suffrage. In many cases there was an additional provision that the voter must possess a specified large quantity of land or must pay specified taxes. In some Colonies there · was a religious require- .

All these requirements I have just ' mentioned. · were prerequisites for the exercise of the voting privilege.

While there were few specific provisions concerning . suffrage in the charters of the Colonies, popular elections existed in each of the Colonies from the earliest - date down to the Revolution. Popularly elected assemblies carried on local goverrunent. Virginia had a House of Bur­ . gesses as early as July 30, 1619.

And what was the first consideration of these · colonial groups who - were fiercely protective of their rights?

One of the first tasks of these colonial assemblies - was to regulate the elective franchise. (See McCulloch, Suffrage and Its Problems, at p. 18.)

While the qualifications were vague and indefinite, there were many require­ . ments, each a proof of the local regulation of voting qualifications. Even the Crown and the English Parliament made no serious attempt to modify or · harmonize the various suffrage regulations. I quote from the same volume, page 19: This left each colony practically free to pass its own laws providing for the franchise. By the time of the Revolution this · practice became thoroughly established, thus allowing each Commonwealth to make suffrage laws to fit its peculiar electoral problem.

Down to 1776 there were seven qualifications for the elective franchise. The outstanding one was the landed property qualification, which probably arose because of the business corporationlike nature of the early Colonies. A piece of land was considered as giving a person the freedom of the company, · as · provided by Massachusetts in 1621, exactly as a block of stock entitles its holder tO vote in a corporation.

. Porter, "History of Suffrage in the United States," pages 3 and 4:

But this very simple test of property holding could not long hold out alone, although it was the first and the dominating consideration • :(or almost 200 years following. The population became so complex, the interests of colonists expanded so far beyond · mere commercial enterprise that other standards of fitness for participation in the affairs . of the community were sought out and established. Strict limitations had been put upon · the right to join the company, and after the companies ceased to exist and the Colonies became exclusively political institutions, the same limitations were carried over - for the suffrage with some elaboration. They dealt with all the various things which are supposed to determine capacity to take intelligent interest in community affairs. Race, color, sex, age, religion, and residence were now investigated before the applicant was admitted to : the suffrage. The theory was that only those who clearly had an interest in the colony-measured in terms of tried standards-should exercise the right of suffrage.

. There we find a yardstick or a method of providing qualifications for voters d,uring colonial days.

Virginia had varying requirements. In 1655 a voter had to be a habitant and a householder; in 1699 he had to be 21 years of age, a male habitant arid freeholder, papists barred. By 1762 this had been further refined by the · freeholder being particularly required to own 50 and5: acres, or 25 acres and house 12 by 12.

Massachusetts first required religious standards, Puritan and Orthodox, in 1631. By 1691 Massachusetts required a v-oter to be English and to own 40 . shillings freehold or 40 pounds of property . .

Connecticut in 1638 required a voter to be a habitant, a Puritan and a freeman, : and varied this by 1702 to specify · that he have 40 shillings freehold or 40 pounds of property .

Rhode Island, as early 1665, required a competent estate and barred Christian papists. By 1767 Rhode Island added to this the requirement of living in a town, plus owning 40 shillings freehold or 40 pounds of property.

New Hampshire in 1680 required that a voter be 24 years of age, English, Protestant, and have an estate of £20. By 1728 the last requirement was increased to £50 in realty.

North Carolina in 1669 required a voter to be a deist and to have a 50-acre freehold. · By 1760 this had - varied. The . qualifications were 21 years of age, 1¥2 years residence, British nationality and · a 50-acre freehold.

South Carolina in 1669 required a person to be a deist and to have 50 acres freehold. By 1759 a South Carolina voter had to be white and 21 years of age, Protestant, and have a settled freehold.

Georgia demanded a man to be 21 years of age and to have 50 acres of land, papists barred. In 1775 the land requirement took on a subtle change. It was replaced by the word "taxpayer," plus one-half year's residence required, and · papists barred.

Pennsylvania . in 1683 required a voter to own 100 acres--10 cultivated; or 50 acres-20 cultivated; or taxes. In 1700 Pennsylvania required a man to be 21 years of age, a 2-year resident, English, and own 50 acres-12 cultivated; or £50 in property. ·

Delaware, in 1701, had a 2-year residence requirement, 21-year age require­ _ ment, and land ownership of 50 acres-- page 6: 12 cultivated; or £50 in property. By 1733 British citizenship had been added to the list.

Maryland's only requisite in 1637 was that voters be freemen. In 1718 Maryland had barred Catholics and required 50 acres or £40 property.

New York in 1683 accepted a vote from any freeholder. In 1701 21 years age requisite and £40 realty was necessary, and papists and Jews were barred. ·

New Jersey in 16ii8 allowed any freeholder to vote. In 1725 that freeholder had to be a 1-year resident, and must own 100 acres or £50 of property.

It is interesting to regard some of the varying reasons for the above requirements, keeping in mind that the very fact they have varied in each State · , with the particular conditions of growth and the existing population, adds undeniable power to the case I am presenting for each State in the Union, for their own continued right · to judge their own needs and provide therefor.

I read from Porter, "History of Suffrage in the United States," pages 4 Standards of character and fitness varied from one part of the country to another. In Massachusetts the Puritans believed that only by restricting suffrage to men in their churches could the future well-being of the colony be insured. The problem of the right ~o vote became distinctly subordinate. They restricted the suffrage for the good of the community. The fact that their standard of good character (church membership) was narrow is not at all surprising. The character of the man's employment · was often considered a criterion of his ability to . vote intelligently, and thus college men and clerical officers were presumed to be espf!­ cially fit for the suffrage.

The philosophy of suffrage has always been more or less opportunistic, if the word is permissible. Suffrage qualifications are determined for decidedly materialistic considerations, and then a theory is evolved to suit the situation. In the early days riot and disorder might accompany an, election. _ The authorities would thereupon fix the qualifications so that the disorderly people could not vote next time. Then would come the theory to . justify it-only those owning a certain number of acres would be con­ . sidered fit to vote, only those of a certain religious faith, etc. · . Unquestionably this has happened in times of stress, for theory did not come to be the preliminary determining factor until complete peace and . order prevailed, and even then theory was not · uncolored by materialistic considerations. Suffrage limitations were bound to adapt themselves to social and economic conditions. In rural Virginia the freehold requirement of 50 acres excluded very few of the best type of men. But such a requirement in · an urban community would have been intolerable. Obviously an absolute criterion could not obtain. It became necessary to adopt whatever criterion was calculated to embrace the best men.

Moral qualifications were restricted almost exclusively to New England. It was sometimes necessary for the voter to show proof of his good character. At other times if one were accused of improper conduct it would cost him his vote, although the particular offense was not mentioned in · the law. In the South there were restrictions against men of certain race--foreigners and Negroes were excluded.

I read further from Porter, "History of Suffrage," bottom of page 5 and all of All of the restrictions and qualifications can be seen to support one of two · runda­ · mental principles: One may be called the theory of right and the other the theory of the good of the State. Every qualification imposed had one of these two principles in view. Either it was established in order to fulfill the right which certain people were supposed to have, or else it was established simply in order to serve the best interest of the State. It might have been said that a man had a right to vote because he owned property, or because he was a resident, or because he paid taxes, or simply because the right to vote was a natural right · . · And this would be the guiding consideration without regard to the effect it might have on the well-being of the community. Thus in some places nonconformists were allowed to vote because their property right was recognized. Nonresidents were permitted to · vote where they owned property solely because they were supposed to have a right to vote on account . nt of their holdings. This theory of right was the first to appear and has always persisted. Each generation would seek to add a new subhead to the title, as it were, and base a right to vote on some new ground.

The other great principle or theory had to do with the good of the state. It developed as soon as the narrow businesscorporation concept was abandoned, and it was most emphasized by the Puritans. It continues to the present day but has never been entirely divorced from the theory of right. Under this theory of the good of the state men were excluded because they were not church members, because they were criminals, because they had not been residents a long-enough time. It is not always possible to classify every restriction definitely, but it may be said that · one of these -two theories controls every modification of . the suffrage.

· In the North, there were no race qual­ . ifications, because the few free Negroes scattered through the northern Colonies · seemed to have caused little alarm along suffrage lines. North Carolina, Georgia, · South Carolina, and Virginia were the only colonies which disfranchised Ne- . groes before the time of the Revolution, showing that either very few of them tried to vote or there was little aversion to it, the former probably being correct. · At any rate, there was no race issue injected generally into the suffrage regulations . Another generation saw a marked change.

There was in none of the Colonies except Pennsylvania the rigid residence requirement of 2 years. And why the particular need there, true locally, yet not present elsewhere? Probably because of the conservative proprietor's desire to limit the influence of the many recent immigrants.

The property test was the most frequent and weightiest qualification. The cheapness of la.nd led to the requirement above stated, in some instances, that the land be worth a certain sum in money or produce a certain income. Again we see the ever-present variations in the different Colonies. In Georgia there could not be the same money value requirement as in more thickly populated New England, and conversely, a voter in crowded New England could not have been required to own the same quantity of land as the voter in sparsely settled Georgia. In Virginia the varying standard of 50 acres of land, or 2 · 5 acres of land being worked and occupied by a house 12 feet square, or a town lot with a house of similar dimensions, was the answer to the rural versus urban problem. The city dwellers could not acquire land to a broad extent, and the rural dwellers resented a value fixation being set on the land to be held.

Five oi the Colonies allowed the .substitution of personal property for real estate:

This indicates a distinct concession of the urban communities, and it is significant that four of these States are in the small New England group, where the supply of . real estate was limited. -This adaptation of the suffrage qualification to the particular economic situation illustrates the willingness of men to adjust their ideas of what is fundamentally right to the needs of the dominant group. (Porter, "History of Suffrage in the . United States," p. 9.)

The next breakdown in this type requirement is from personal property to taxpaying. As condition change, a trend emerges, the picture alters, and the statutory machinery with which we are equipped permits each State to shift or vary its position with the times.

Religious tests were decisive in New England, and common everywhere except in Pennsylvania. In the South, papists were usually specifically barred, New York barred Jews. Maryland also barred Catholics.

Massachusetts supplemented the religious tests by moral character qualifications. Later a property qualification was inserted as an alternative. Later the religious test disappeared. South Carolina, with her requirement that a voter acknowledge the being of God, was the last State to have the statutory religious standards for suffrage and religion as a qualification for voting passed out with the colonial period.

Citizenship and residence were of comparatively little importance in a new country, predominantly British.

Before turning to the Articles of Confederation and our Constitution, the following words concerning voting qualifications in the Colonies seem particularly appropriate:

It is of moment to note that there were no efforts at uniformity in the regulation of suffrage. In each Colony by ch . charter, or more often by acts of the assembly, the elective franchise, was controlled independently. This commonwealth treatment of suffrage was the na t ural result of colonial history. So thoroughly grounded was this policy that when the Colonies seized sovereignty and organized a Federal Government the suffrage program was undisturbed.

It continued as the basic foundation on which all Federal elections must rest. (See McCulloch, "Suffrage and Its Problems," The truth of the proposition that each State best knows its own conditions, and is best equipped to handle them, is shown by the direction of the Continental Congress , on May 10, 1776, following the outbreak of the Revolution, to each of the Colonies to "adopt such governments as shall best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.” Hart, "Formation of the Union, 1750-1829," at page 89. Following these instructions, the Colonies had already begun, before July 4, 1776, to draw up written instruments of government. I now desire to read a few paragraphs from McCulloch on "Suffrage and Its Problems." I read from page 30, the first paragraph:

With the separation from the mother country came very little change for the Colonies severally. The Union took the place of the Crown, while the various Commonwealth governments went on very much as before. Therefore, suffrage regulations were not disturbed at all; each Commonwealth continued to regulate the elective franchise independently. The several States sought directions of the Continental Congress as to framing constitutions to replace the old charters which had been granted by the King.

But after this bad been done, the two sets of governments moved along independently. The central government under the Articles of Confederation interfered with the States as little as possible, and they do not seem to have looked to it even for advice.

The only point at which the two governments could touch even indirectly on suffrage matters was article V, which provided that the delegates to the Confederation Congress should be appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State should direct.

Also, quoting directly from the Articles of Confederation, and to demonstrate the doctrines that remained ever uppermost in the minds of the founders of our country, I quote article II:

Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.

I now read from the Federalist Articles of Confederation, article V, the first paragraph:

For the more convenient management of the general interest of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner . as the legislature of each State shall direct, to . meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the year. Al.so:

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

The above provisions show clearly that matters of voting qualifications were to be left strictly to each State. The Articles of Confederation were inadequate and hurried, and later proved insufficient to cope with the changing United States and its manifold problems. A new and farsighted instrument was needed, a considered and welldebated structure built on a framework with a future. But, it is noteworthy, before we turn from the Articles of Confederation, that even though the country was in the midst of revolution, torn by varying doctrines and lacking in all organization at the time they were written, there was one thing that was not left out.

Many important things were left .out, much was left a blank, but even in a time of crisis these men who were struggling for a workable governing organ to suit their needs and their hopes, kept one thing before them, the inviolable right of each State to determine the qualification of its voters and to control its own elections. They did not fail to preserve this right in the articles they drafted.

When the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted in time of stress without full cognizance of the problems to be solved and with the States themselves ill defined geographically and politically, proved unsatisfactory and insufficient, it was suggested by Hamilton in 1780, and later by Tom Paine. that a convention be called to revise the Articles of Confederation, and to draft a Constitution of the United States of America. Let us go back to that Convention. There is drama in the air. Vital provisions for the constitutional structure of a new country are in the making. Each delegate has his own theories, his own pet beliefs to advance. All are filled with a desire for the best in government for their new country.

Maj. William Pierce, of Georgia, made some notes on the membership of the Convention. Among those historically well known to us today who were prominent in drafting provisions affecting voting qualifications was Rufus King, about whom Major Pierce said:

Mr. King is a man much distinguished for his eloquence and great parliamentary talents. He was educated in Massachusetts, and is said to have good classical as well as legal knowledge. He has served for S. years in the Congress of the United States with great · and deserved applause, and is at this time high in the confidence and approbation of his countrymen. This gentleman is about 33 years of age, about 5 feet 10 inches high, well formed, a handsome face, with a strong expressive eye, and l\ sweet high toned voice. In his public speaking there is something peculiarly strong and rich in his expression, clear, and convincing in his argumentS, rapid and irresistible at times in his eloquence but he is not always equal. His action is natural, swimming, and graceful, but there is a rudeness of manner sometimes accompanying it. But take him tout en semble, he may with propriety be ranked among the luminaries of the present age. ("United States Formation of the Union, Documents," P. 96.)

There was Nat Gorham, about whom it is said: ·

Mr. Gorham is a merchant in Boston, high in reputation, and much in the esteem of his countrymen. He is a man of very good sense, but not much improved in his education. He is eloquent and easy in public debate, but has nothing fashionable or elegant in his style; all he aims at is to convince, and where he fails it never is from his auditory not understanding him, for no man is more perspicuous and full. He has been President of Congress, and 3 years a member of that body. Mr. Gorham is about 46 years of age, rather lusty, and has an agreeable and pleasing manner. ("United States Formation of the Union, Documents," p. 96.)

One of the highlights was Alexander Hamilton.

Colonel Hamilton is deservedly celebrated for his talents. He is a practitioner of the law, and reputed to be a finished scholar. To a clear and strong judgment he unites the ornaments of fancy, and whilst he is able, convincing, and engaging in his eloquence the heart and head sympathize in approving him. Yet there is something too feeble in his voice to be equal to the strains of oratory; it is my opinion that he is rather a convincing speaker, than a blazing orator . Colonel Hamilton requires time to think, he inquires into every part of his subject with the searchings of philosophy, and when he comes forward he comes highly charged with interesting matter, there is no skimming over the surface of a subject with him, he must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on. His language is not always equal, sometimes didactic like Bolingbroke's, at others light and tripping like Stern's. His eloquence is not so defusive as to trifle with the senses, but he rambles just enough to strike and keep up the attention. He is about 33 years old, of small stature, and lean. His manners are tinctured with stiffness, and sometimes with - a degree of vanity that is highly disagreeable. ("United States Formation Union, Documents," p. 98.)

From Connecticut came Oliver W. Ellsworth, who was on the committee of detail charged with forcing the provisions affecting elections:

Mr. Ellsworth is a judge of the supreme court in Connecticut; he is a gentleman of a clear, deep, and copious understanding; eloquent, and connected in public debate, and always attentive to his duty. He is very happy in a reply, and choice in selecting such parts of his adversary's arguments as he finds make the strongest impressions, in order to take off the force of them, so as to admit the power of his own. Mr. Ellsworth is about 37 years of age, a man much respected for his integrity, and venerated for his abilities. ("United States Formation," supra, p . 98.)

From Pennsylvania, on this committee, came Mr. James Wilson:

Mr. Wilson ranks a - among the foremost in legal and political knowledge. He has joined to a fine genius all that can set him off and show him to adavntage. He is well acquainted with man, and understands all the passions that influence him. Government seems to have been his peculiar study, all the political . institutions of the world he knows in detail, and can trace the causes and effects of every revolution from the earliest stages of the Grecian commonwealth down to the present time. No man is more clear, copious, and comprehensive than Mr. Wilson, yet he is no great orator. He draws the attention not by the charm of his eloquence, but by the force of his reasoning. He is about 45 years old. ("United States Formation," supra, p. 101.) ·

From Virginia came James · Madison and Edmund Randolph:

Mr. Madison is a character who has long been i-n public life; and what is very remarkable, every person seems to acknowledge his greatness. He blends together the profound politician with the scholar. In the management of every great question he evidently took the lead in the convention, and. though he cannot be called an orator, he 1s a most agreeable, eloquent, and convincing speaker. From a spirit of industry and application which he possesses in a most eminent degree, he always comes forward the best informed man of any point in debate. The affairs of the United States, he perhaps, has the most correct knowledge of, of any man in the Union.

He has been twice a Member of Congress, and was always thought one of the ablest Members that ever sat in that council. Mr. Madison is about 37 years of age, a gentleman of great modesty, with a remarkable sweet temper. He is easy and unreserved among his acquaintances, and has a most agreeable style of conversation . ("United States Formation," supra, p. 104.)

Mr. Randolph is Governor of Virginia , a young gentleman in whom unite all the accomplishments of a scholar and a statesman. He came forward with the postulate, or first principles, on which the convention acted, and he supported them with a force of eloquence and reasoning that did him great honor. He has a most harmonious voice, a fine person, and striking manners. Mr. Randolph is about 32 years of age. ("United States Formation," supra, p. 105.)

Robert Morris, with James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, Gouverneur Morris, and others, represented Pennsylvania: Robert Morris is a merchant of great eminence and wealth, an able financier, and a worthy patriot. He has an understanding equal to any public object and possesses an energy of mind that few men can boast of. Although he is not learned, yet he is as great as those who are. I am told that when he speaks in the Assembly of Pennsylvania, that he bears down all before him. What could have been his reason for not speaking in the convention I know not, but he never once spoke on any point. This gentleman is about 50 years old. ("United States Formation," supra, p. 101.)

On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph presented the following resolution:

Resolved therefore, That the rights of suffrage in the National Legislature ought to be proportioned to the quotas of contribution, or to the number of free inhabitants, as the one or the other rule may seem best in different cases.

Resolved, That the National Legislature ought to consist of two branches.

Resolved, That the Members of the first branch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by the people of the several States every (blank) for the term of (blank). ("United States Formation," supra p. 116.)

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I now yield the floor upon the conditions which were agreed upon before I began to speak.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, do I correctly understand that when the Senate convenes at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, the Senator from Arkansas will have the floor for a speech which he intends to make on the pending motion; that at the conclusion of that speech the floor will once again be taken by the distinguished Senator from Louis~ana [Mr. ELLENDER] ; and that the . speech . which the Senator. from Louisiana will make then will be considered to be a part of the first speech he is making this afternoon?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PELL in the : chair). The Senator's statement is in .accordance with the previous order, and IS correct.