March 12, 1947 (2)

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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Florida [Mr. H;oLLAND] has the :floor.

Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, l shall not take many minutes of the time of the Senate on the matter which I am discussing. I do not discuss . uss it from a partisan standpoint, - from a political standpoint, or for any purpose other than to simplify and clarify the issue presented by the proposed constitutional amendment so that when it is submitted, if it be submitted, to the people of the United States, they will be afforded an oppor- ­ tunity acting by States, to decide whether they want to continue the Washington tradition, as it is known and referred to as a tradition, or to enact it into law, by writing it into the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. President, at the time the Senate recessed to go to the Hall of the House of Representatives I had mentioned one of the reasons why I felt that the amendment as reported by the committee, as well . as the form of amendment suggested by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, would depart very greatly from the Washington tradition, in that it would affect so differently Vice Presidents who succeeded to the Presidency from the way in which Presidents themselves would be affected.

I called attention to the fact that if . this am - amendment had been a part of the Constitution at the time when the late President Theodore Roosevelt, one of our greatest Americans, was endeavoring to be elected again to the Presidency in 1912 because he thought, as millions of others thought, that there was work for him to do, he would not have been eligible to become a candidate in that particular election. I do not think that would have been good or sound.

I call attention to the fact that if at the end of his first fUll elective term President Coolidge, himself another great American whom I honor, had felt, and if a sufficient number of the American people had felt, that the emergencies of the situation and the critical nature of the conditions at that time demanded that he should again stand for the Presidency and be reelected to the Presidency, he would have been ineligible.

I call attention to the fact that but for specific provisions exempting the present occupant of the White House, the same situation would exist with refer­ . ence to him. While I appreciate the courtesy which lies behind the proposed exception, and I consider it to be a generous gesture, yet I do not think the amendment ~ill commend itself to the public to any greater extent because of the fact that it makes an exception with reference to the present occupant of the White House. If, however, the proposed amendment were adopted, in the last year and three-quarters of the 7-year period in which its ratification may be considered, it would apply in a different way to the then occupant of the White House, whoever he might be, unless he continued to be the present occupant of the White House. I do not think it sound to suggest the submission of a constitutional amendment which might apply in different ways to two individuals serving in the period of time within which the amendment will be considered by the people of the various States of the Union.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. President, will the Senator from Florida yield? ·

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Does the Senator wish to make the legislation retroactive, and change the conditions which now exist? Is that his argument?

Mr. HOLLAND. No. My position is that the unwisdom of the adoption of the amendment at this time may be · clearly demonstrated by indicating how it would have worked if applied to actual conditions through which this Nation has lived in the past.

My first point is that if it had been applied to the late former President Theodore Roosevelt it would have prevented his becoming a candidate in 1912. It would have prevented President Coolidge from becoming a candidate at the time he chose not to run, which, of course, was his privilege. My next point was that, as presented, the proposed substi­ / tute amendment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio might apply differently to two different occupants of the White House during the period of 7 years.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. If the Senator will again yield, his last point is the one to which I am addressing my inquiry.

Mr. HOLLAND. Let me read the provision of the proposed substitute amendment of the distinguished Senator from Ohio:

But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the time within which this article becomes operative, from holding . the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

I think it is qUite clear that under the ' last clause which I have just read, a completely different rule would be applicable to an occupant of the White House serving in the years 1949 to 1952, .inclusive, if that individual were a person other than the present occupant of the White House.

Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. I am trying to find out whether the Senator wishes to change the law so as to make it retroactive and make it affect someone who may occupy · the office before the legislation is finally ratified and adopted ' by the Nation. Does the Senator wish to change the existing situation?

Mr. HOLLAND. No. My suggestion is that the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON) Will simplify and clarify the joint resolution and make it, in effect, a statement of the Washington tradition by eliminating any question rect. whatsoever except the eligibility of a person to be elected President for more than two successive terms. It would eliminate all the hair-splitting questions as to whether or not a Vice President succeeding to the office of President has served a few days less or a few days more, or whether a former Vice President who :is now serving as President is affected in a different way from another who might be serving even within the period cf time within which this amendment will be considered by the people of the several States of the Nation.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. TAFT. I merely wish to invite the attention of the Senator to the difference between President Truman and any man who may occupy his position in the future. In the case of President Truman, when he ran for Vice President there was no limitation, and it seems to me that that difierentiates him from a man who knows when he runs for Vice President that if the President dies in the first 2 years of his term he can serve for only 6 years. In other words, as to President Truman, the law would be retroactive except for this amendment. That was one of the reasons why I was glad to propose that change. On the other hand, as to men who choose in the future to run for Vice President, they will know exactly what is before them. They Will know that if the President lives for 2 years and then dies, they may possibly be President for 10 years if they are reelected twice. If he dies within the first 2 years of his term, they know that they can serve for only 6 years. ·

Mr. HOLLAND. I appreciate the fairness of the Senator, and I think he should be commended for it. However, I invite his attention to the fact that the proposed wording goes a great deal further than his suggestion, because it would not merely permit the present occupant to serve two full terms plus the remainder of the term in which he is now serving, but it would operate so ~,ts to place no limitation whatsoever upon his right to run, whereas it would operate entirely differently as to someone else who might succeed him during the period of 7 years, _ and would operate still . differently in the case of someone who might fill the post after the actual adoption of this amendment, if it should be adopted.

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

Mr. HOLLAND. I yield.

Mr. MAGNUSON. The able Senator has well pointed out the many ramifications and possibilities which might occur when we attempt to limit the succession and Presidential terms beyond the Presidency itself, and attempt to deal with the Vice Presidency, or some other office in the line of succession. As the Senator has suggested, what those who proposed this measure are trying to do is to keep a man from deliberately using his office to be reelected for too many terms. This provision might apply to three different men in three different ways in 7 years.

Mr. HOLLAND. The Senator is corI am sensible of the fact that there is sentiment in this Nation as to the wisdom or unwisdom of engrafting the Washington tradition upon the Constitution. What I should like to do would be to give to the American people a clear opportunity to decide for themselves whether they prefer to continue the tradition as such, electing to decide in their own wisdom from time to time whether any person should - have more than two terms, or whether, instead. they prefer to place such a provision in the Constitution.

When it came to the floor of this body, I was disturbed because of what seemed to me, although my judgment may be wrong about the matter, to be three trouble-making provisions. The first was the one requiring submission to conventions, which it seemed to me would not be economical, and which might result in the amendment not being ratified simply because of a failure to call the conventions, if in as many as 13 State legislatures there were politically minded people who could prevent calling of them. But, above all, it seemed · to me that it would call for a period of political harangue, political discussion, and political convulsion which I think would be inappropriate in the particular times through which we are now passing. So I am glad the Senate has omitted that provision. Two other provisions of the measure now before the Senate I believe to be objectionable-and I make this point without any question as to their being based on partisan politics or anything of the kind. One of them, which I have already mentioned, is with reference to its effect upon Vice Presidents. The other, which I shall now mention briefly, is that both the original joint resolution and the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the distinguished Senator from Ohio would so operate, I think, under the conditions stated in the amendment, as to make a person entirely ineligible for reelection, even though he might not have served in the immediate past as President of the United States.

Mr. President, if I correctly understand the demand which has persisted for so many years that the Washington tradition be engrafted upon the Constitution, it has been upon the basis that a President might adopt a course which would be calculated to keep him in office, and might build up political machinery which would enable him to be reelected. If that be the objection and if that be a sound argument for the submission to the people of a constitutional amendment based on the Washington tradition, and if they are in favor of writing it into the Constitution, I submit that the objective is met entirely by the amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Washington: for, if that amendment were agreed to, it would operate only to prevent succession in office after a President had served two full terms.

I call the attention of the Senate to the fact that these are troublous times. We have just heard an address delivered by the President, who, I am sure, had the sympathy of every one of us, regardless of how we may decide upon the momentous issues with which he was dealing. Everything he said and everything in connection with that historic occasion at the other end of the Capitol, from which we have just returned, served to accentuate the fact that we are living in difficult times and will continue so to live for many years in the future.

I call the attention of the Senate. without applying it particularly to either one party or the other, to the fact that young men, brilliant men, able statesmen, are now offering themselves or are being suggested by others as candidates for the Presidency. Indeed, they are so young that if they served for eight full years, as would be provided if the Washington tradition were written in t o the Constitution, they would . still be in their late forties or their early fifties and would still be available to . the call of the Nation after having returned to civil life for 4 years. ,

Mr . President, with our knowledge of the fact that this is becoming a young man's world and the actual fact that young men of proved ability and high qualities of leadership are offering . and are available for the Presidency, do I not think we should adopt a course which would preclude recalling, after a vacation, such a young man who has been ripened and matured by the experience of 8 years in the White House, if there were great need for him.

Personally, I hope to vote for this amendment, and I shall do so if the amendment of the Senator from Washington is adopted; but I want to say to the distinguished Senators who favor this amendment that they are simply adding additional objections which will make for further difficulty in connection with the consideration of the amendment by the people of the States, if they insist upon the Taft substitute. I hope, Mr. President, that the issue may be clarified, may be simplified, and may be submitted as merely one proposition so that we may ascertain whether the p e ople of the Nation wish to have the Washing t on tradition remain such, or want it included in the Constitution of the United States. Reference has been made several times in the course of this debate to provisions of State constitutions which prevent succession to the governorship after either one term or two terms or three terms. There may be others, but I am familiar with these three different requirements in various States . .

I call attention to the fact that in no case, if we make that comparison, have the people of a so v ereign State ruled that a man who has served them as governor shall become by reason of that fact ineligible to ever succeed to that responsibility or to ever be called to lead them again in the governor's chair, whereas the result of this amendment as offered by the committee and of the substitute amendment offered by the distingui-shed Senator from Ohio would be to render persons of experience, of high, proved qualities, ability, and courage, wholly ineligible, regardless of conditions and regardless of their age and strength.

I call attention to the fact that we have right here in the Senate men who have served as governors of their States and who have taken the enforced vacations which were provided for under the constitutions of their respective States, and then have been called back to serve again as governors. Out of the abundance of material which is going to be produced by this Nation in the future, and which is already being producedand I can look at both sides of this Chamber and see able Senators who would come within that classification-! · think we shall have young men offering for the Presidency and, at times, elected to the Presidency. So, I should hate to see a limitation imposed which would prevent the Nation from having the · same advantage which the States have insis t ed upon having for themselves in reference to the governorship; that is, the advantage of calling back if need be, if occasion required, if there were a critical, crucial time which demanded the service of a person of proved worth and experience, who had . manifested his ability to ' do a particular job, I should hate to have the Nation put in the position that such a person could not be called back to the Presidency.

I realize that the same argument applies in lesser degree to continuation in office after s · years · ; but I think that ' the lay citizens who really urge this . amendment want the American people to have an opportunity to determine whether- the Washington tradition shall be fixed in the Constitution or whether it shall remain merely a tradition. There will be plenty of controversy, plenty of differences of opinion upon that point, and it will not be on partisan lines or on a wholly political basis. It will be founded in the soundest, most patriotic thinking our people can apply to it. I hope that is the kind of measure which will emerge from this debate.

It is my strong hope that the amendment offered by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] may prevail, so that this proposed constitutional amendment may then be submitted to the people of · the United States and so that they may have an opportunity to say, after understanding what it is that they are called upon to decide, whether the Washington tradition shall remain simply that, or whether it is best, in their judgment, to engraft it upon the Constitution itself.

The inclusion of all these other factors is trouble making and will disturb the impartial consideration of the amendment, and in my judgment will tend to defeat it.

Let us give it a fair chance, and let the people say whether they want the Washington tradi-tion to remain as such or whether they wish it to become a part of our fundamental law.