March 10, 1947 (3)

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 27) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KNOWLAND in the chair) . The question is on agreeing to the first committee amendment, on page 1, in lines 6, 7, and 8.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, today has been somewhat of a field day, and perhaps we have neglected the pending measure. If possible, I should like to have a quorum present and a vote taken on the first committee amendment to House Joint Resolution 27.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin suggest the absence of a quorum?

Mr. WILEY. I do.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hayden Myers Baldwin Hickenlooper O'Conor Ball Hill O'Daniel Brewster Hoey • O'Mahoney Bricker Holland Overton Brooks Ives Pepper Buck Jenner Revercomb Bushfield Johnson, Colo . Robertson, Va. Byrd Johnston, S. C. Russell Cain Kern Saltonstall Capehart Kilgore Smith Capper Knowland Sparkman Chavez Langer Stewart Connally Lodge Taft Cooper Lucas Taylor Cordon McCarran Thomas, Okla. Donnell McCarthy Thye Dworshak McClellan Tobey Ecton McFarland Tydings Ellender McGrath Umstead Ferguson McKellar Vandenberg Flanders McMahon Watkins Fulbright Magnuson Wherry George Maybank White Green Millikin Wiley Gurney Moore Williams Hatch Morse Young . Hawkes Murray

Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES], the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BUTLER], and the Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] is necessarily absent on State business. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MARTIN] is absent by leave of the Senate. The Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED] and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. RoBERTSON] are absent because of illness.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Eightythree Senators having answered to their names, a quorum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the first committee amendment, ~ which will be stated:

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 1, line 6, after the words "ratified by", it is pro­ Byrd posed to strike out "the legislatures of Cain three-fourths of the several States" and insert "conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution", so as to read: '

That the following article . is hereby pro­ Ecton posed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, - which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution.

Mr. WILEY. I ask for the yeas and · nays.

The yeas and nays were · ordered.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr. TAFT. Is my understanding correct that a vote "yea" is a vote in favor of the convention method of ratification, and a vote "nay" is a vote in favor of :ratification by the legislatures of the several States?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is correct. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

Mr. WHERRY. I announce that the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES] and the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BUTLER] are necessarily absent. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. MALONE] . is necessarily absent on State business. The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. MARTIN] is absent by leave of the Senate, and the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. ROBERTSON] is absent because of illness.

The Senator from Iowa [Mr. WILSON] is necessarily absent. If present and voting he would vote "nay."

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED] is absent because of illness. He is paired . with the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER].

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, the senior Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] is absent because of the death of his wife. If he were present he would vote "nay."

The Senator from California [Mr. DoWNEY], the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator from Utah [Mr. THOMAS], and the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] are necessarily absent. · ent.

The Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER] has a general pair with the Senator from Kansas [Mr. REED].

I announce further that if present and voting the Senator from Utah [Mr. ']JIOMAS] would vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 20, nays 63, as follows:

YEAS-20

Cooper Langer O'Conor Donnell Lodge O'Mahoney • Fulbright McGrath Pepper Green McMahon Taylor Hatch Magnuson Umstead Hill Murray Wiley Kilgore Myers

NAYS-63

Aiken Gurney Morse Baldwin Hawkes · O'Daniel Ball Hayden . Overton Brewster Hickenlooper Revercomb Bricker :Hoey Robertson, Va. Brooks Holland Russell Buck Ives Saltonstall Bushfield Jenner Smith

Johnson, Colo. Sparkman ,

Johnston, S.C. Stewart

Capehart Kern Taft Capper Knowland Thomas , Okla. Chavez Lucas Thye Connally :McCarran Tobey Cordon McCarthy Tydings Dworshak McClellan Vandenberg

McFarland Watkins

Ellender McKellar . Wherry Ferguson Maybank White Flanders Millikin Williams George Moore Young

NOT VOTING-12

Barkley Eastland Robertson, Wyo. Bridges Malone Thomas, Utah Butler Martin Wagner Downey Reed Wilson

So the amendment was rejected.

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, i ask unanimous consent for leave of absence on Wednesday, on official business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the leave is granted.

Mr. WILEY obtained the floor.

Mr. ' MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. - The Senator will state it.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Does the Senator from Wisconsin intend to ask for the adoption of the second committee amendment at this time?

Mr. WILEY. Yes.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I have an amendment at the desk which I wish to offer as a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the second amendment of the committee.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page · 1, after line 9, it is proposed to strike out "Any person who has served as President of the United States during all, or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of President; but this article shall . not prevent any person who may hold the office of President during the term within which this article is ratified from holding such office for the remainder of such term" and to insert "A person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, on 365 calendar days or more in each of two terms shall not be eligible to hold the office of President, or to act as President, for any part of another term; but this article shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President or acting as President during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Washington offer his amendment as a substitute for the committee amendment?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I offer my amendment as a substitute, and ask that it be stated.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington.

Mr. GEORGE . Mr. President, before the amendment is offered formally, and read at the desk, I as s ume there will be no objection to taking the same action with reference to the amendment in section 2 as the Senate has just taken as · to section 1, that is, to restore the provision calling for ratification bythe legislatures rather than by the convention method. I make that suggestion to the Senator from Wisconsin, in charge of the joint resolution.

Mr. WILEY. If there is no objection, Mr. President , I ask that, In accordance with the vote just had in relation to the amendment in section 1, similar action be taken with regard to the amendment in section 2.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered, and the commit t ee amendment on page 2, lines 15 and 16 is rejected.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I now offer my amendment as a substitute.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.

The CHIEF CLERK. In lieu of the Ian· guage proposed to be inserted on page 2, beginning in line 4, and extending down to and including line 12, it is proposed to insert the following:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, to my mind, the suggested amendment is in the nature of a perfecting amendment. There was much discussion ii,.l committee, legal and otherwise, regarding not only the House bill but the committee amendment which is now before the Senate. Many questions were raised; for example, as to whether a man who was acting as President was actually a President; and as to the period during which a man could hold office as acting President, and if he was elevated to the office of President through circumstances beyond his control, to what period he should be limited.

The committee amendment is in very complicated legal language. I doubt if many State legislators could really understand its wording, but in effect it was an honest attempt to provide a restric- ,. tion, so that if, through an unfortunate circumstance, such as the death of the President, or otherwise, the Vice President should assume the office of President, or act as President for any one year, meaning one calendar year of 365 days, thereafter he would be eligible to run for the Pre s idency only once.

We might as well get down to brass tacks: This joint resolution was submitted by those who are anXious to have it passed, as I understand their position, solely because of their objection to a man who had deliberately sought and obtained the office of President, using the office during the course of two terms in an effort to perpetuate himself in the office. A Vice President, or a Secretary of State, and so on, all down the line of succession, through circumstances beyond his control, and with no deliberation on his part, might, because of some unfortunate circumstances, be required to assume the Presidential office. If he assumed the office and occupied it for 1 year, . ar, not as the result of a deliberate act upon his part, and then held the office for ano t her t e rm , he w o u l d be barred from r.unning for the o:ffi.ce again. What is really intended to be reached · by those who · desire the passage of the measure would be accomplished by the language of my amendment, which merely says in simple language; "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." It seems to me it is a perfect amendment which could be easily understood by everyone, and wh i ch would not invo l ve complicated legal ques t ions such as, "When is a man Acting President? When does he assume the office?"

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yie l d?

The PRESIDING the Senator from Washington yield to the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. Am I to understand from the Senator's remarks that he construes this amendment simply to mean, for example, that if a Vice President went into the Presidency and served, let us say, 30 days, and the term of the incumbent expired, then he would only be eli g ible for another 4 years? .

Mr. MAGNUSON. If he served longer than a year-that is, more than a calendar year of 365 days.

Mr. LUCAS. If he served more than a year, then he would only be eligible for 4 more years; in other words, 5 years would be the limitation placed upon him.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In effect, under the committee amendment, it is possible that a man could be President for only 5 years. The 1 year he served prior to his first 4-year term would bar him from running for another 4 years, although his first service might have been brought about by no deliberation on his part, but because of an emergency or an unfortunate circumstance beyond his control. What is really being sought by those who oppose more than two terms, as I garner it, as the result of conversations, is to prevent a man's deliberately- using the office of President in order to perpetuate himself in office; that is, for more than two terms. I think the language of the committee amendment is bad; it is difficult to understand. It seems to me that my amendment makes it simple and strikes at the heart of what is desired to be corrected.

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

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I very much favor the Senator's amendment, and I think it says what we want to say, if we are going to say anything about it.

I want to call attention to another thing. A man might serve as Vice PreSident and be required to fill the vacancy. That is understood. He would feel inclined, he might even feel in duty bound, to carry out the policies of the man he succeeded, under those circumstances. Every man is entitled to have an endorsement term of his own policy. Having been elected, and having served for a term, he is entitled to an endorsement term. That is democracy.

The committee amendment would preclude s u ch a man having the opportunity to submit his candidacy for an endorsement term, if he served out an unexpired term.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Because he did his duty, he would be penalized. He would be barred from running for the office of President more than once.

Mr. McCLELLAN. If the joint resolution were adopted in the form pro- posed by the amendment of the Senator from Washington, it -would, in my opinion, be far more persuasive with the Ame r ican people and would be more persuasive with the State legislators than the joint resolution in its present form.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, will OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. I like the amendment of the Senator from Washington much better than the committee amendment. I am not a member of the committee. There may be some reason why the amendment of the Senator from Washington is not preferable to the committee amendment. But until some Senator g i ves us a better reason than has heretofore been given I shall continue in the belief that the amendment of the Senator from Washington is preferable and does what · we want to do.

Mr. LODGE. Mr . President, I should be glad if the Senators on the o t her side of the Chamber would raise their voices so that we on this side could hear the discussion that is going on.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I stated that I am not a member of the committee; that there may be good reasons why the committee amendment is preferable to the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, but that, so far as I have been able to think my way through, I am convinced that the amendment of the Senator from Washington is preferable to the committee amendment. What we are trying to do is to stop any man from being elected President more than twice. I am for that. I think it is a fine thing to put in the Constitution. But under the committee amendment a man could be prohibited from being elected President more than once, provided that he had served more than 1 year prior to the time he was elected President. Therefore it is conceivable that a man would be limited, under the committee amendment, to serving in the Presidency on l y 5 years. I think that provision is a little stringent. I think if we limit the Presidency to two elected terms in that office we will do what I believe a great many Americans want done. If we were to strain it still further I am afraid we would bring about opposition in some of the legislatures to the adoption of the proposed constitutional amendment. Whereas if the constitutional amendment provided for two elected terms, and that is all that was put before the legislature, in my judgment it would secure more votes and have a better chance of adoption. I should like to see the Presidency limited to two terms.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield:

Mr. WILEY. I think possibly the Senator from Maryland has in mind the language as i t came frn n t h e House when he speaks of . t h e lim it ation that would be made. The House language is as follows:

Any person who has served as President of the United States during all, or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to hold the office of President.

Under the committee amendment he could hold the office for two terms and almost 1 year, but if he had been in office more than 1 year before the next term of office, he would be limited to election to the additional term only.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct. But under the committee amendment, it is possible that if a man was elevated to the Presidency from the Vice Presidency, and served as President 1 year, through a calendar year, then he would be forever barred from running for the Presidency more than once thereafter. He would be limited to only one term thereafter.

Mr. WILEY. That is correct.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin that I think he and I agree on what the language means. To illustrate, let us assume that the Vice President becomes President through death of the President or in any other waY, and serves only 300 days. Then he is elected President. He could then be elected for a second term, serving two terms and a little less than a year of the term of his predecessor. But if he served 366 days as President by reason of the death or otherwise of his predecessor, and then was elected President, ' be would be forbidden from running for President again after he had served the one term to which he was elected. Considering that wars and depressions and all kinds of unforeseen things quite often come to pass during a Presidential term, it seems to me that the people ought to have the right to elect a man to two full terms in the Presidency if they want to do so, and that we ought not to deny them the right to elect a President for two full terms, but we ought to _ provide that a man cannot be elected President for more than two terms.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. CONNALLY. The Senator's amendment provides that "No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice." But he could have served a portion of a term by reason of death or resignation or disability of the previous incumbent.

Mr. TYDINGS. That .is correct.

Mr. CONNALLY. It seems to me that opposition to such a provision is not tenable.

Mr. TYDINGS. I think the amendment is a good one.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. It seems to me the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, if adopted, would create a most peculiar situation under the American system of elections. Under the Senator's amendment, an individual who becomes President by accident, an act of divine providence, or otherwise, and who was not originally elected to the position, is the only person who can hold protracted office in the Presidency. One who was elected to the Presidency by the will of the people, under the Senator's amendment, can serve only two terms, and accident, chance, or act of divine providence will be the only reason whereby an individual can hold office for a substantial period beyond the two terms.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct, but of course we cannot foresee such contingencies or legislate - against them. But by the same token, and in reverse, an individual could serve in the Presidency 366 days and then he would be forever barred, under the committee amendment from running for the Presidency more than once thereafter.

The committee discussed the matter at great length. There can be Acting Presidents of the United States. That is legal. In other words, what is sought to be done by this limitation of the Presidential tenure is to abolish what some say might become the evil of a man deliberately seeking the office and then using the power of office to perpetuate himself.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Pre s i­ dent, will the · Senator yield again?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. That may be the purpose of the sponsor of the amendment, the Senator from Washington, but in the amendment he is creating a most unusual situation. The only person who can possibly serve for more than two terms, under the Senator's amendment, is someone who, let us say, as I stated a moment ago, by divine providence or some other intervention accidentally comes into the Presidency, who has never been voted upon by the people for that office.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is correct.

Mr-. HICKENLOOPER. Instead of giving the preference and the privilege to a man or a woman who · has been affirmatively voted into the Presidential office by the people, the advantage is given to someone who has never been voted into the particular office by the people.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The disadvantage is given to the same man under the committee amendment. I do not think we should deal with contingencies whereby a man because of circumstances beyond his control is elevated to a high office.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. Does not the committee amendment make a discrimination? Does it not discriminate against the man who, as the Senator from Iowa says, accidentally gets into office and while he is accidentally holding the office does such a good job that he is elected to the office? Would not the theory of the committee proposal bar such a man from being reelected? It seems to me that we should reward rather than punish merit.

Mr. MAGNUSON. That would not be true under the theory of my amendment.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. The argument of the Senator from Iowa, if I may have his at.= tention, will not, I think, hold water, because he is perfectly willing for a man to be elected twice and to serve, in addition to his two terms, 300 days.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I do not quite agree that the Senator is right in assuming what I believe. In fact, I would just as soon limit the term of service of a President to not more than two terms, in any event, leaving out of consideration the 365 days.

Mr. TYDINGS. The trouble with the argument of the Senator from Iowa, as I understand it, is that he has no objection, under the committee amendment, to a man serving two terms plus less than a year. Am I wrong?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. That might be said to be stretching a belief a little.

Mr. TYDINGS. Am I wrong?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The Senator is wrong--

Mr. TYDINGS. Therefore what the Senator says about a man getting into office . by accident does not apply, because he says that if he gets into office by accident and serves 364 days, he may run for President again. But if he gets into office by accident and serves 366 days, he may not run for office again. So it seems to me the Senator meets himself coming back. He takes a week-end trip of 3 or 4 days and changes the whole Constitution.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. Presiqent, will the SenatGr yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. TAFT. If I correctly understand the difference between the two amend- . ments, under the committee amendment a man might be held to a service of 5 years. The longest he could serve would be 8 years. Under the amendment proposed by the Senator from Washington, he might serve 8 years, or he might serve as long as 11% years. My objection to the Senator's argument is that 11% years is too long. I think the 411 general precedent has been the other

Mr. MAGNUSON. Does not the Senator feel that 5 years is too short?

Mr. TAFT. Strange to say, Preside . nts have died in the first year of their terms. Garfield died in the first year of his term. Arthur served 3 years. William Henry Harrison died in the first year. Tyler served 3 years. McKinley died in the first year of his second term, and Theodore Roosevelt served for 3 years and was elected for a full term, serving a total of 7 years. At that time that was considered to be in conformity with the two-term rule, as then applied. He did not run for reelection.

In the case of Coolidge, Harding died almost within his first year. Coolidge served for 3 years, and for an elective term of 4 years in addition, and then did not run again, apparently feeling that the total of 7 years was in conformity with the two-term rule.

It is not only a question of power. It seems to me that it is a question of whether a man should serve that long as President of the United States. By reason of the Vice Presidential situation. we cannot say "8 years or nothing." I should be perfectly willing to vote f.or one term of 6 years and say that no one should be President more than 6 years. The provision of the committee amendment that no man shall be President for more than 5 years is perfectly . tly reasonable to me. If the Senator wishes to make it 6 years, I am willing to compromise with him . But I think it is a great mistake to say that a man may serve for 11 years. I think that is too long. I think it would break down his health. I do not believe that any man ought to serve that long, from the standpoint of his welfare or that of the Nation.

Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President , will the Sen-ator yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. I will say to the Senator from Ohio that I think there is a great deal in what he says, that 11 Y z years in the Presidency is too long. My point is that 5 years in the Presidency may be too short. If this amendment were changed so that a man could serve 7 years in the Presidency, then I think we might prevent him for running for a second · elective term. But this amendment takes the other extreme, so to speak. The two extremes a r e 11 years and · 5 years, instead of 8. If we are to allow some Presidents to serve 8 years, then in good faith we ought to permit Vice Presidents who are elected President after they serve a part of the term of their predecessor, due to his death, a longer time than 5 years · in which to be President. If it is right to have a limitation of 8 years for a twice-elected President, then why . in heaven's name · is it not right to give a Vice President the 3 years which he may serve in the term of his predecessor plus one full term, rather than limit him to 5 years?

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. TAFT. Under the amendment of the Senator from Washington he could serve for 11 years, and be elected twice.

Mr. MAGNUSON. We are talking about extremes.

Mr. TAFT. The people can end his service at 4 years, if they so desire. It is the extreme in which we . are interested, and not the short term.

Mr. MAGNUSON. In any event, the people of the United States should have the right once to vote for a man and say, "We want him for our President." They should also have the right to say, "He has been a good President, and we want to elect him again." Under the committee amendment that would not be possible.

Mr. TAFT. I am willing to vote for one term of 6 years, instead of two terms totaling 8 years.

I should like to read a resolution adopted by the Senate--

Mr. MAGNUSON. Am I to understand that the Senator · from Ohio favors one term of 6 years?

· Mr. TAFT. I do not care whether it is one term of 6 years or two terms of 4 years. ·

I should ~ like to read the resolution adop t ed tiy the Senate near the end · of Coolidge's term, after he had served 3 years of the term of his predecessor and 4 years of an elective term. . Apparently the question worrying the Senate was whether Coolidge intended to run for another term, and thereby serve 11 years. The Senate adopted the following resolution:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents of the United States in retiring from the Presidential office after their second term has become, by universal concurrence, a part of our republican system of government, and that any departure . from this time-honored custom would be unwise, unpatriotic, and frau g ht with peril to our free institutions.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Was that after Coolidge declined to run? ·

Mr. TAFT. No. That was near t he end of Coolidge's term, before he had declined to run. It was in the natu r e of a warning. The Senate did not think he ought to run. I may say that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] voted for that resolution, as did _ the distinguished Senator from Maryland [Mr. TYDINGS].

Mr. TYDINGS. I am still for it.

Mr. TAFT; The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. McKELLAR] and several other Senators now Members of this body voted for {t. ·

I think the generally. accepted belief has been that if a man has served 3 years of the term of his predecessor and 4 years of an elected term, that conforms to the two-term rule, and he should not be reelected. Whether the 1 year of service mentioned in the committee amendment is perhaps too short, I am not prepared to say. But I think it would be a great mistake to say that after a man had been President for 3 years, he should then be eligible for two more terms, serving a total of 11 years. If that is all that is to be accomplished by . the joint resolution I do not believe it is worth while to pass it. Personally I would prefer one 6-year term. But certainly the length of service should not be more than 9 years, in accordance with the committee amendment. I think that is as long as anyone should be permitted to serve.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, we are talking about two extremes. There is probably a happy medium. What impresses me most is that when a man assumes the office of President by reason of the death or disability of his predecessor, the people ought to have the right to endorse him for a second term if he has done a good job. They can do so only by election.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. It is not quite material to this issue; but in view of what the Senator from Ohio said about the resolution which was adopted during the Coolidge administration, I wish to reemphasize the point that it was merely a resolution adopted by the United States Senate.

For some reason at that time it was not felt adVisable to introduce a joint resolution providing for a constitutional amendment and submit it to the American people. I do not know what went on 1n those days, but I imagine it was much the same as what is going on today. Partisan politics played its part in that particular resolution when there was talk about running Coolidge for a third term; and partisan politics is playing its part today on the floor of the United States Senate. Partisan inspiration is responsible for this proposed constitutional amendment-. The Senator from Ohio has seen fit to call attention to the fact that the Senate went on record in a resolution which followed the language of the Springer resolution back in the days of Grant. Representative Springer, of Illinois, used the same language which was later used in the Senate during the Coolidge regime. At that time Members of the House did not sponsor a constitutional amendment. They chose to adopt a pious political resolution. I will not say that some Members of Congress do not have convictions upon this question; but I do say that at the bottom of this resolution is partisan politics. The basis of the resolution which was adopted in the Coolidge days, and the one adopted in the days of G r ant , was partisan politics.

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

Mr. MAGNUSON. I yield.

Mr. HILL. On last Friday I spoke at some length on the pending joint resolution, but nothing that I said at that time points up the fallacy of the joint resolution or demonstrates so clearly and un- mistakably how unwise the pending measure is, as does the debate which has just taken place on the committee amendment and the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington. The debate shows beyond all peradventure of doubt that this iron-handed and rigid provision should not be put into the Constitution to deny the people their right to determine this question themselves. The question of who should be elected President and how long he should serve should remain where it has been · for the past 150 years, that is, in the sound judgment and the wisdom of the people of the United States.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield?

Mr. MAGNUSON. I will yield in a moment. I want to make my position clear. I said at the outset that this was, in my opinion, a perfecting amendment. In the committee the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. McGRATH] and I and several other Senators joined in having the joint resolution amended so as to provide for the convention system, so that the people would have the right to pass on the question. Now that the committee amendment has been rejected, I reserve the right, if the question goes to my State, to decide how I shall vote on it. I am almost constrained, particularly if this language stays in, to vote against the pending joint resolution. My only purpose is to make it simple so that the people of the United States will know what they are voting on ' when .it is presented to the States.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, will the Senator from Washington yield to me for a moment? If he has concluded, I will take the floor in my own right .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Has the Senator from Washington completed his remarks?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes. l yield the floor. ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized. . Mr. HATCH. Mr. President; on this question I have had many ideas. First, let me say that on Wednesday, because of. long-standing engagements, I . shall have to be absent from the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that I may absent myself from the Senate on Wednesday. _

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, permission is granted.

Mr. HATCH. I have previously told the people of my State that they had the right, aside from partisan politics, to decide for themselves by constitutional amendment whether they wanted to tie their hands on the election of a President. If I were present on Wednesday, and if this resolution should come to a vote, I would vote to submit such an amendment. I had made up my mind to do that because I had made previous promises which I wanted to keep. But as I have listened to the debate this afternoon I have almost changed my . mind, because, like the Senator from Wash- . ington [Mr. MAGNUSON], I see nothing in this resolution but party politics. Yes; I see something more than that. I see the complete failure of the majority party to carry the responsibility which they said they were willing to carry when they went into the campaign last November.

Mr. President, I agree wholeheartedly with everything the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. BUSHFIELD] said when he stated that the majority party had failed in the promises which they had made.

Nothing could be more evident from the debate this afternoon than that the Republican Party, the majority party; is still looking backward. It is still the party of fear. What do they fear? They are afraid, Mr. President, of the voice of a ghost, of the only man who was . ever reelected President 3 times. They are afraid of him, and they are now endeavoring to legislate against Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Mr. President, I still intend to vote to submit the proposed constitutional amendment to the people of my State · and to the people of the Nation so that they may determine whether they wish to adopt an amendment by which they would limit themselves to choosing a President for two t-erms, for 8 or 11 years.

What a mighty debate this has been! What a wonderful thought was conveyed to the country when the Senate of the United States argued over the difference between 8, 9, and 11% years!

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I yield to the Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. O'MAHONEY. Does the Senator not feel that the debate with which we have been regaled during the past hour and a half is a pretty conclusive demonstration that the constitutional fathers knew what they were doing and could write an understandable provision into the Constitution?

Mr. HATCH. So persuasive is the Senator from Wyoming that while I still adhere to the promise which I made, I shall go back to New Mexico, before the legislature, or before a convention, and say, "Turn down this amendment; vote it down quickly, because you, the people, have a better idea as to whom you want to elect President than any party politician can have."

So, Mr. President, I shall vote to submit the amendment.

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

Mr. HATCH. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator agree with me, as a result of what he knows has happened in the last 150 years on the question of tenure, that the founding fathers were the only ones who were fair and impartial with reference to this very question?

Mr. HATCH. They knew so much more than we that I am frankly ashamed of our poor, pitiful effort as demonstrated here today, when we argue over the difference between 8 and 11 years.

Mr. LUCAS. The Senator knows that the Nation has lived and prospered and been happy for 150 years under the · tenure provision in the Constitution of the United States, and now the Senate is about to say that it has more wisdom than had the founders of the Republic, and that it is better prepared to say what the citizen of tomorrow should do than · · would the citizen himself if a great emergency should confront him 50 - years hence.

Mr. HATCH. No; I cannot agree to that.

Mr. LUCAS. That is what we are saying if we pass this joint resolution.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Of course the Senator has no objection to trying to make the people understand what they are doing.

Mr. HATCH. I certainly- could vote for the amendment of the Senator from Washington, because, after all, the only basis on which it is submitted is that no man should be elected to the office of President more than twice. There is a great deal of confusion. It is not only a . question whether he may be elected twice, but how long he may serve if he succeeds to the office as Vice Presidentfor 365 days or 366 days. There are 366 days in some years.

I am wondering if it is possible that some Senators could be looking at the present situation. The Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] is nodding his head. He is a member of the committee. Are Senators afraid that the present President of the United States will be reelected in 1948 and possibly again 4 years later? Ah, Mr. President, with the great problems of reconstruction, the great problems of world affairs confronting us, with the peace of all the world and the lives and safety of our sons involved, yet we argue over the difference between 5 years and 11 years.

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

Mr. HATCH. I yield.

Mr. TYDINGS. I point out to the Sen- ator from New Mexico that, under the committee amendment, 1f the P . resident were to die - and the · Vice President, for example, were to take the office during leap year, he could be elected President at two succeeding elections, provided the President had died at such a time as to make the unexpired part of the deceased President's term run for 366 days. But if the President happened to die on a year that was not leap year, the Vice President could serve for only one succeeding term.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. President, I have very little more to say. I hope I have not been offensive to anyone in my remarks. I have been deadly in earnest. These things are so wrong. TheY could be handled so simply. I have the highest regard in the world for the chairman of the Judiciary Com- mittee. I know his intentions are good. I know his patriotism cannot be questioned.

Then, Mr. President, why bring up these questions? If an amendment to the Constitution is desired, why not adopt a simple amendment pr _ providing, "No President shall be elected twice"? Why not do that? That would cover everything that it is desired to cover .

But, no, Mr. President; it is the opinion of some Senators that we must deal in days and hours, trying to gain a petty, insignificant political advantage. What is to be gained by that? Mr. President, I do not think it is important at all that either the Democratic or the Republican Party win in the election in 1948. I am · quite sure in niy own mind that whoever is nominated on the Republican ticket in 1948 for President of the United States will be a loyal and patriotic American, with whom I could work without any regrets and without too much opposition. I f'eel the same way about whoever is nominated on the Democratic ticket at that time.

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

Mr. HATCH. I yield.

Mr. MYERS. It occurred to me that the limitation might better be placed upon political parties, rather than upon individuals, because I have seen it happen that there have been three different Presidents during 12 years' time, and yet the result has been merely to change the person in the Executive office, rather than to change the policy or the philosophy, since the same fundamental political philosophy has continued.

So, Mr. President , if the proponents of this resolution desire to cure what they believe to be an evil, the limitation might better be placed upon parties, rather than upon individual candidates for the Presidency.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish now to conclude my remarks. I think it is quite true that during the past years the candidates on' the Republican ticket have endorsed the fundamental philosophies for which we have argued. I do not think there is too much difference among us. I regret very much to see going out to the country the impression that we in the Congress argue . and debate - about inconsequential matters, because I accord - to every Member of this body on the other side of the aisle the same full devotion to , the United States which t cla i m · for myself. ·

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. , Mr. Pr e sident, will the _ Senator yield?

Mr. HAT . CH. r am throug-h; I yield the floor.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I simply wi s h to comment on some of the remarks the Senator from New Mexico . has made. I am fully i :1 sympathy with his solicitude about quibbling and disputing over minor matters, but I call his attention to the fact that the quibbling arid disputing i ng were started over the amendment proposed by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON J and · practically all the quibbling and disputing which h a ve occurred during recent days have come from those on the other side of the ai s le.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I am about to propound a un ' unanimous-consent reque s t. However, before doing so, I wish to say a few words.

The debate which has taken place during the last hour-for this subject has been discu s sed today for only 1 houris similar to the debate which occu r red at the time · of the formation of the . Republic, with one exception; namely, that in those days there was . no in s inuation that the debate was for political · purposes. In those days the founding fathers saw the challenge which certainly those of us today who have ' eyes . tQ see with, see now. The House saw it, and so indicated by voting by · ' such a vast majority in favor of the joint resolution. Five or six or seven Senators saw it; and so indicated by submitting resolutions. In the subcommittee De - Democratic and Republican S e nators saw it, and indicated as much by reporting this resolu­ terms tion. What they saw was simply that power vested too long in the hands of anyone is dangerous to the . community and to the Nation.

Even President Roosevelt saw that, and even that great Democrat, Thomas Jefferson, saw it when he endorsed the two-term tradition, which has become the unwritten law of the land. . He said: No pretext should ever be permitted to dispense with it— ·

He was referring to the principle of rotation in the Executive Office­

B e c a use there will never be a t i me when real difficulties will not exist to fw·ni s h a plausible pretext for dispensation. ·

When I quoted that language at the time when I opened the debate on this subject some days ago, I showed what the pretext was in the case of President Roosevelt.

No, Mr. President; we are not afraid of shadows. We are not even fearful of realities. But we feel · it is our obligation to face them.

Under the joint resolution as passed by the House, and as it has been discussed here, provision is made that anyone who has occupied the Office of President of the United States during all, or portions, of any two terms, shall thereafter be ineligible to serve in that office in a succeeding term.

Under the Senate committee's version of the resolution, the Chief Executive might in oi1e case serve for as long as 9 years.

Th . ose who. have read the debates which occurred in the early days of this Republic know that up to the very last the founding fathers debated the question whether the President should be eligible for only one term and whether such a term · should be for 7 years. Mr Pre s ident, I have been glad to hear Senators on the other side of the aisle express their admiration for the founding father s . Finally, in order to compromise and get things accomplished, the founding fathers left the question undecided. But the first · President of the United S t a t es, Geor g e Washington, recogn i z e d the valid it y of the arguments and of the ideas which had been presented · at that great period in our hi st ory, when our N a tion was · being formed; and he e s established the principle of not more than two terms for any President. The other founding fathers iridic ~ ted their concurrence in that view.

Now we have ar . arrived at a period in the history of the world in which we have seen demonstrated on a world scale how dangerous it is for power to gravitate into the hands' of one · m ' an or orie group. I do not think there · should be any insinuation that . partisanship or mere politics is responsible for the bringing of this resolution before the Senate : In · . the debate in the Committee on the Judiciary, I . 9o not think partisan politics · was ever mentioned . . There was unanimity on this subject, with the . exception ' of one . member of the committee; and now, as I understand, even that Senator has indi· cated a desire to have the Congress legis- · late explici t ly that those who serve in the office of Chief · Executive of the Nation shall not serve for more th . an two So. Mr. President, I a s k unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the amendments and on the joint resolution on Wednesday · at not later than 3 o'clock, and, if that is agreed to, I shall ask a recess be taken.

Mr. GREEN. A parliamentary inqu i. ry.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state it.

Mr . . GREEN. I have it in mind, when the proper time comes and I have an opportunity, to move to postpone action in this matter. May I make that motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion will be in order at the time the Senator is recognized.

Mr. GREEN. I have been recognized.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No; the Senat-or from Wisconsin has the floor. The Chair understood the Senator to rise to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. GREEN. Then, if I am forced to do so, I regretfully object.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, it may be impossible to agree on a time to vote, but I wish to say that in my opinion the matter before us is obviously not a partisan question. We cannot adopt the amendment unless the Democrats, or a large number of them, join in voting for it.

For years I have been in favor of limiting the presidential term either to 8 years or 6 years. We cannot get away from the complicated problem produced by the fact that a Vice President may serve a portion of a term after succeeding the President. So far as I am concerned, if this is · taken in some way as an attack on President Truman, I am willing to except the present incumbent of the office. I am more interested in the general principle and not in that particular feature, if that is the basis .of the charge of partisanship, because that certainly was not in mind.

I suggest that the Senate now adjourn , and it may be possible to work out, with those who favor the general principle, some compromi-se on this question, which tnay be taken up on Wednesday .

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I sho u ld li k e to remind Senators on the other s : de of the aisle that the Democrats have not taken too much time in the debate on _ the floor · of the Senate this afternoon. S'o far. as we are concerned, we would a soon go along . and work this matter out tonight. We want the country to know that we are not in accord with what - the Senator · from Ohio [Mr. TAFT] said a few days ago, after he came out of a conference, when he attempted to shift the responsibility for the failure to enact legislation onto the Democrats on th i s side of the Senate. Of course , that , is not the case.

I know that there are some speeches to be made on this side, and I myself wish to say some things in coP .. connection with the pending measure. If S : mators wish to have a night session, so far as I am concerned, we can have one, taking an hour for dinner, and · returning and rema;ining here until o'clock tomorrow morning, if necessary.

Mr. President, I should like to have something done in this Congress, so far as I am concerned, and I resent the fact that the Senator from · Ohio saw fit to say, simply because we carried on for some 10 days-:-that is, every other day for 10 days-discussing the budget question, that the Democrats were attempting to delay action. We are not at all attempting to delay action.

Mr. WHITE. Mr · . President, I think it is perfectly obvious that we will ' not be able to conclude the debate tonight. It is Equally clear to me that we should dispose of the pending measure as soon as we can. The Senator from Ohio spoke of an adjournment. I suggest that the motion should be for a recess.

Mr. TAFT. I spoke carelessly. My only point is that it seems to me that if there is complete disagreement on the particular issue now before us, it will prevent the passage of the joint resolution, wh i ch I should like to see passed. It seemed to me that a recess might give an opportunity to reach. some compromise with those who think the pending committee amendment cuts the tenure too short, and I thought. we might do better by taking a recess than by going ahead to a vote tonight. However, I have no objection to a vote on the pending amendment, if the Senate wishes to take it. We can work the compromise out afterward.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I repeat , I see no object in continuing the session further. It is perfectly certain that we are not going to conclude the debate today. In addition to that, I am repeating and emphasizing that those of us upon this side of the aisle · have an important meeting as we think, at 8 o'clock.

Mr. LUCAS. I do · not think it will be nearly so important . as passing the pending joint resolution. I do not know what the meeting is, of course.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, I have never seen such a case of jitters as are now so prevalent on the other side of the aisle. In all my experience, which goes back a number of years , I have . never seen a party so much disturbed, so far ahead of a general election, over the possible consequences of it. I am now going to move that the Senate recess--

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?

Mr. WHITE. I yield.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Because of the fact that the pending amendment is my amendment, I was hoping we could get a vote on it tonight, unless there is to be more discussion. I do not know of any other Senator who desires to speak, and I should like to have a vote on the amendment.

Mr. WHITE. I have understood quite differently as to those desiring to speak.

Mr. MAGNUSON. l did not know of

RECESS TO . WEDNESDAY

Mr. WHITE. I now insist upon my motion that the Senate recess until 12 o'clock noon on Wednesday next.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 6 o'clock and 8 minutes p.m.) the Senate took a recess until Wednesday, March 12 , 1947, at 12 o'clock meridian.

NOMINATIONS

Executive nominations received by the Senate March 10 (legislative day of February 19), 1947:

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

John E. Peurifo ~ , of South Carolina, to ' be an Assistant Secretary of State.

DIPLOMATIC AND FOREIGN SERVICE-

James · E. McKenna, of Massachusetts, now a Foreign Service officer of class 3 and a secretary in the diplomatic service, to be also a consul general of the United States · of America.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

Hon. Drake Watson, of · Missouri, to be United States attorney for the eastern district of Missouri, vice Hon. Harry C. Bl ant on, term expired.

UNITED STATES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

The fol!owing-named candidates for promotions in the Regular Corps of the Public Health Service : ·

SENIOR ASSIST AN T SURGEON TO BE TEMPORARY SURGEON

Paul V . Joliet ASSISTANT SURGEONS TO BE TEMPORARY SENIOR

ASSISTANT SURGEONS

Leo J. Gehr ig Arthur E. Rikli

Warren W . Kreft Robert Leslie Smith Eric P. Lof g ren SENIOR ASSISTANT DENTAL SURGEONS TO BE TEM­

PORARY DENTAL SURGEONS

Eugene H. Hess Maurice S. Rodgers SENIOR ASSISTANT SANITARY ENGINEER TO BE

TEMPORARY SANITARY ENGINEER

Chris A. Hansen ASSISTANT NURSE OFFICER TO 'BE TEMPORARY

SENIOR ASSISTANT NURSE OFFICER

Hazel E. Owen