March 12, 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 PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, as modified, proposed by the Senator from Washington, to insert in lieu of the italicized matter in lines 4 to 12, on page 2, the following: "No person shall be · eligible to be elected to the office of President for more than two successive terms." ·

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President I suggest the absence of a quorum. '

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll. ·

The Chief Clerk called the . roll, and the following Senators answered to their names: Aiken Hawkes Murray Baldwin Hayden Myers Ball Hickenlooper O'Conor Brewster Hill O'Daniel Bricker Hoey O'Mahoney Bridges · Holland Overton Brooks Ives Pepper Buck Jenner Revercomb Bushfield Johnson, Colo. Robertson, Va . Byrd Johnston, S . C. Russell Cain Kem Saltonstall Capehart Kilgore Smith Capper Knew land Sparkman Chavez Langer Stewart Connally Lodge Taft Cooper Lucas Taylor Cordon ­ McCarran . Thomas. Okla. Donnell McCarthy Thomas, Utah Downey McClellan Thye Dworshak McFarland Tydings

McGrath Umstead

Ecton McKellar Vandenberg Ellender McMahon Watkins Ferguson Magnuson Wherry Flanders Martin White Fulbright M a y bank Wiley George Millikin Williams Green Moore Wilson Gurney Mon ; e Young

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eightyseven Senators having answered to their names, a quorum is present. .

Mr. REVERCOMB obtained the floor.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield to me so that I may ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment, as modified? · d?

Mr. REVERCOMB. I yield to the Senator for that purpose.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, there is now pending before the Senate as the unfinished business House Joint Resolution 27 which proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the terms of office of the President. The purpose of the joint resolution ls to submit to the several States a proposed amendment to the Constitution which would limit the tenure of the office of the President. We have debated this subject for several days. Amendments have been made to the measure reported from the Committee on the Judiciary, and the next vote will be upon an amendment offered by the able Senator from Washington.

I think it well at this time to summarize the effect of the several amendments, beginning with the amendment which was reported to the Senate, and including the pending amendment of the Senator from Washington and the amendment which will be offered if the amendment of the Senator from Washington is not agreed to.

The amendment reported by the Judiciary Committee would have limited the President's tenure of office between a minimum of possibly years 5 and a maximum of 9 years less 1 day. The amendment of the able Senator from Washington would limit the tenure of office to a minimum of 8 years and a possible maximum of 12 years less 1 day. That amendment has been changed to read "successive terms of office." Therefore, if the amendment now before the Senate is adopted, it will mean that any person may possibly serve for 12 years in succession, less 1 day, then skip a term of office, and continue for another 12 years. We have been given notice that an amendment with respect to the limitation of time will be offered by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. TAFTL Under that proposed amendment, if it reaches the :floor, the minimum limitation upon tenure in the office of President would be 6 years and the maximum 10 years.

As a member of the Judiciary Committee and of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments, I frankly say to this body that I personally have favored the limitations placed in the amendment proposed by the committee. However, I know that a number of Members of the Senate believe that a possibility of 5 years as a minimum would be too short a time within which to limit any man in that office under the circumstances of succession from the Vice Presidency.

Certain Senators have indicated that they prefer the amendment which may be offered if the amendment of the Senator from Washington does not prevail, providing a minimum limitation of 6 years and a maximum of 10. I shall support that amendment. But I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Washington.

The appeal has been made upon the ground that we would unduly limit individuals from holding office. That is not the real purpose of the amendment. The real heart of the amendment is to prevent any individual from holding too long the office of Chief Executive. As is well known, it became a custom firmly implanted in the tradition · ~ion of this country for many years that one individual should not serve more than two terms as President of the United States. This custom began with the end of the second term of office of the first President, George Washington, when he declined to accept nomination after he had completed two terms. That custom lasted for more than 150 years, and was the subject of positive statement, sustained by a number of eminent men who had held the office of President.

Among them I cite the name of Thomas Jefferson, who time and again endorsed the rule that no man should serve for more than two terms. He gave his reasons. He feared that a despotism might grow in this country if any individual were permitted to occupy for to · o long the office of Chief Executive. Jefferson was a great believer in preserving the democracy of this country and setting up every possible barrier against autocratic rule.

Likewise, during his term of office, Andrew Jackson expressly subscribed to the limitation of the tenure of office in the Presidency, and he went so far in those early days as to say that there should be a constitutional amendment limiting the term of occupancy of the Presidency to 6 years.

Grover Cleveland, who held the office for two terms which were not consecutive, ably expressed his opposition to any one man continuing in office for too long. He took a more extreme position than any taken on the :floor of the Senate. His position was that no man should hold the office of President beyond one term. The reason for the rule is apparent and sound. Our fundamental concept is that government shall be in the will of the people. That at once makes us guarded against vesting power for too long a time in any man in any office. To grant extended power to any one man would be a definite step in the direction of autocracy, regardless of the name given the office, whether it be president, king, dictator, emperor, or whatever title the office may carry. It would be a definite step toward the destruction of real freedom of the people.

During the discussion of this subject, I have heard the argument made that we should not interfere with the will of the people in electing a President as many times as they may desire. We are not interfering with the will of the people. We are submitting, in the form of an amendment to the Constitution, which is the basic law of the land, the question as to whether or not the people wish to erect a safeguard against any man occupying the Presidency of the United States for an unlimited term.

There is no partisanship in this question. The proposed law is not aimed at any one man. It would apply to all in the future. It would be a safeguard and bulwark against a possible seizure of Executive direction in this great country of ours. So I submit that the joint resolution going to all the States of the Union and to the people for adoption is an effort to prevent possible autocracy arising in the future, and to preserve in truth representative government.

It may be argued that the Congress, the membership of which is elected from term to term, might well be sufficient assurance of safety against · individual power in the Executive. I submit that the Congress cannot stop the growth of Executive powers which may be gained by an individual through long tenure in so powerful an office as that of President of the United States. There are immense innate powers in that office. They , can be mushroomed fast or gradually grown until the strength of thorough despotism may be in the hands of one man, or a group of individuals. for that matter, to rule the people . by his will and not by laws. If such a situation should be brought about it would be, in summary, the very destruction of government by free and independent people and a move toward the creation of dictatorship in fact.

The purpose of the proposed amendment is to prevent with exactness the creation of such a possible situation. It is to guard the people against the destruction of the very basis of freedom under our Government. It is so fundamental to the very existence of the Government in the hands of the people that there should be no hesitancy in the adoption of the amendment by the people, and certainly no hesitancy on the part of the Senate in giving the people an opportunity to express their will.

The House of Representatives, by a large majority, has already sent to this body for our action a limitation upon the tenure of office. Are we to say to the people of the country, after the action of the House, that we will stop the people from voicing their views upon the question of the limitation of the term of President?

That is the question which we confront today.

It has been a tradition in the past, and even with that tradition without law on the subject, we have found since the early days and throughout the history of the country even men who have occupied the Presidency advocating, for the safety of the Union and for its life under freedom, a limitation upon the holding of the Presidential office. So when we discuss at this time the length of time that one may occupy the Presidency, whether it be a minimum of 5 years and a maxiinurn of 10 years, a minimum of 8 years and a maximum of 12 years, or a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 10 years, I cannot find any appeal in the argument that a wrong may be done a man who is nominated for the office of President or who may desire to hold that office. The appeal which is made to me is only that a limitation be placed on every man, whoever he may be, who may possibly take the office of the Presidency, to prevent him from ruling over the affairs of the people of this country through the power of that office for an undue length of time.

The custom has been broken, and in the future such an act may have the strength of precedent. That is all the more reason why we should join today with those who have advocated such a rule in the past, to see that a definite limitation is placed upon tenure of office. As I have said, I feel that the substitute amendment offered by the Senator from Washington, which is the immediate question to be voted upon, which would permit not only tenure for 12 years minus 1 day, but would permit, after an interruption of 4 years, another 12 years minus a day, is very little limitation upon tenure of office. I believe there should be a definite and fixed time beyond which no man, whoever he may be, now or in the future, through the life of the Nation, may hold the office of President.

For that reason I must oppose the amendment of the Senator from Washington, and until it is agreeable to the Senate to consider some · other amendment to the committee's proposal I must support the committee's proposal limiting the tenure of office of the President.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, I do not wish to delay action on the amendment, but I think that ' certain facts should be brought to the attention of Members of the Senate, which is engaged in a debate on a subject which goes back to the very foundation roots of the Nation.

In the first place, when the joint resolution was introduced and when the debate started, I felt, as has been so well expressed by my colleague from West Virginia, that the objection was that the President of the United States, due to the appointing power of the Executive, might grasp lifelong occupancy of the Presidency.

On Monday, when the distinguished Senator from Ohio [Mr. TAFT] spoke, I discovered that certain Senators thought that the amendment should be adopted for the protection of the health of the President of the United States. When that question first arose I thought of the protection of the health of a soldier in the United States Army during a critical emergency. We do not ask any questions about his health, unless he goes to a hospital. We do not discharge him when he is battle-weary, as a President might become while serving his country. Thus I am caught between two theories in deciding how to vote on this very important question. On a question of this import, in which we go back and undertake to correct the ideas of the founding fathers of the Government, who wrote the Constitution, which we, ·no matter how egotistical we may become, must admit was a magnificent document, I think it is my duty to call the attention of the Senate of the United States to certain facts. I shall be frank when I say that had the proponents of the pending joint resolution agreed to the idea of submitting it to the people in convention, as was suggested by the junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. McGRATH], so that attention could be called t o the effect of their action, I would have been very much inclined to go along, because, to my mind, the Government of the United States consists of the people of the United States. We of the Senate merely represent them in the seat of government.

For that reason I should like at this time to call attention to statements made by a number of very distinguished Members of this body and by various others on the question at issue.

I invite attention to a statement made by the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, grandfather of the present distinguished junior Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. LoDGE], who thoroughly covered the whole field of argument in a speech which he made on this floor on February 1, 1913.

Senator Lodge opposed any change in the eXisting system. It had been suggested by other Members of this distinguished body that the Presidential tenure be limited to one term and that under such a limitation the President would not use the patronage of his great office to promote his own renomination and reelection. That goes to the first theory to which I refer.

Senator Lodge replied :

I do not myself believe that patronage is very helpful in electing or reelecting anyone to office. On the contrary, I believe that as a rule it is positively harmful. Instances of the defeat either for nomination or for election are very frequent in our history of a President having all the patronage in his possession.

That was what the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge said about the President building up a huge patronage machine and perpetuating himself in office.

The point was raised on the floor then, as it has been during this debate, that the Presidential tenure should be limited to prevent what some refer to as a permanent President.

Apparently those prop.osing such a limitation · are afraid of the people of the United States, who have the :final deciding vote as to whether a President shall continue to hold the office to which he has previously been elected.

The late Woodrow Wilson, one of the truly great statesmen in the history of this country, said:

Put the present limitation of two terms into the Constitution if you do not trust the people to take care of themselves.

The late Senator Lodge also maintained that the people had the right to determine how long a man should stay in office as President.

He told the gentlemen who were afraid of the Nation having a "permanent President" that-

The protection of the country against caesarism or a dictatorship or a perpetual President rests in the character of the American people.

He also said:

No paper provision can protect us against that. If we should reach the point where the people were ready to have a perpetual President or dictator, no constitutional provision would stand in the way.

At this point, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcORD, as a part of my remarks, the full text of Senator Lodge's speech on that occasion, for I think the Senate, as well as the people, should have-an opportunity to study it.

There being· no objection, the · speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

I am not in favor of this change in the Constitution. The chief argument which is offered for the passage of this joint resolution, limiting the President to one term , is that if he has no hope of reelection he will then devote himself exclusively to policies for the benefit of the country and to the work of the country, and , that he will not use the patronage of his great office to promote his own renomination and reelection.

I do not myself believe that patron ag e is very helpful in electing or reelecting anyone to office. On the contrary, I believe that as a rule it is positively harmful. Instances of the defeat either for nomination or for election are very frequent in our history of a President having all the patronage in his possession. The use of patronage, of which complaint is made , is in reality chiefly with reference to its influence upon Congress. That the power of appointment has an influence upon Congress is, I think, undoubted, human nature being constructed as it is, but I cannot see that limiting the President to one term will alter the effect of the patronage on Congress. A President limited to one term, so far as he is personally conc ern ed, is at least anxious that the policies to which he is committed and which he desires should be carried into execution. The patronage, if used at all, would be just as much used for that purpose as to promote his own reelection, and even more constantly.

If a President is debarred from using the power of his great office to secure his own renomination or his own reelection, surely he will be desirous to have a - successor who shall be in sympathy with his views, who will be willing to carry out the policies which he has been unable to complete; he will desire that his own party shall remain in power, for a President without a party and without party principles would not be a desirable President. Therefore, it does not seem to me that we really gain anything in that direction, and, although superficially the argument resting on the case of the Presidential power appears to have much weight , it seems to me in its essence to have very little.

, There is another reason which we hear spoken of, but which I need not dwell upon, namely, that a provision of this kind in the Constitution of the United States will be a defense against caesarism, against a permanent President or dictator. The protection o! the country against caesarism or a dictatorship or a perpetual President rests in the character of the American people. No paper provision can protect us against that. If we should reach the point where the people were ready to have a perpetual President or dictator, no constitutional pro visi on would stand in the way of a revolution of that character iii our system of government, if the people had sunk to that point.

Now, we are asked to take from the people by this proposed constitutional amendment the decision of a question which they are preeminently capable of settling. There is no question whatever that the voters of this country are able to say whether they think a certain man who has served as President ought again to be President, and it seems to me we are simply taking from the people by this proposed constitutional amendment a right which ought not to be denied them. I have sufficient confidence in the American people to believe that they can be trusted absolutely to say who shall be President of the United States and to determine whether a man who has once been President is fit to be President again.

It would have been a melancholy day for this country 1f we had been unable to elect iO a . second term George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. No man can tell when a situation will arise when it might be a vital necessity to retain for a second term a President then in office. We might be engaged in a war where it would be the veriest misfortune conceivable to say that the man at the head of the Government should be changed.

Mr. KILGORE . Mr. President, I have just submitted, without reading in toto, the speech made by Senator Lodge. He also pointed out that President Washington had planned to retire at the end of his first term, but because of developments t s in Europe at the end of his first term and because of complications in respect to fore i gn affairs, he decided that once more he would accept the nomination and the election.

H i story also records that George Washing t on wrote to the Marquis de La Fayette, on April 28, 1788, as follows:

I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who on some great emergency shall be deemed universally most capable as serving the public. The Presidential tenure debate came up during President Grant's occupancy of the White House, just as it has come up every few years since our Constitution was written.

President Grant wrote a letter to Gen. Harry White, president of the Pennsylvania Republican State Convention, on May 29, 1875, in which he set forth his views on the tenure debate. He said:

It may happen in the future history of the country that to change an Executive because he has been 8 years in office will prove unfortunate if not disastrous. The idea that any man could elect himself President, or even renominate himself, is preposterous. It is a · reflection upon the intelligence and patriotism of the people to suppose such a thing poss i ble. Any man can destroy his chances for the office, but no one c a n force an election or even a nomination.

Mr. President, how long should a President serve? Should he serve 4 years, 6 years, 8 years, 11 years, or 16 years?

The answer, of course, as the late Woodrow Wilson so eloquently stated, is that-

Four years is too long a term for a President who is not the true spokesman of the people. It is too short a term for a President who is doing or attempting a great work or reform and who has not had time to finish it.

The people themselves have the right to determine how many terms a President may serve.

Mr. President, only recently in this Chamber, the able junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. McGRATH] suggested that the issue be called to the special attention of the people by having the amendment acted upon in constitutional conventions in the several States . This proposal of calling it to the attention of the people was rejected by the Senate. Now, the whole subject is proposed to be submitted to the legislatures of the various States, who are elected on general platforms, who are subject to all the lobbying which occurs in the various State legis l atures, and who have no particular mission from the people to decide what shall be done.

Mr. Pres i dent, it seems to me that in this long debate none of the proponents of this proposed constitutional amendment have suggested a limitation on the numb e r of terms a Member of Congre s s may serve. Presidents are elected in the same way that Members of Congress are elected. The people have the right to reject a man seeking reelection to the Presidency, just as they have the right to reject a man seeking reelection to the Congress. The difference seems to be that two different departments of government are involved, one the executive and the other the legislative. If we are to place a limitation on one, why not place a limitation on the other?

The answer is that under our Constitution the people have the sovereign right to keep in office or to reject at an election any public official.

. The Washington Evening Star of Monday, February 24, stated that-

The drive for a constitutional amendment limiting future Presidents to two terms has about it an atmosphere of political immaturity-a suggestion that the inheritors of the best political system in the world lack confidence in the essential foundation of their political structure.

In the same editorial it was also stated:

The question which should be posed to the sponsors of the amendment is this: Why should we of this generation undertake to tie the hands of our children in any and all circumstances, none of which can be foreseen now? Surely, on the record of our own performance, we have no valid claim to the requisite wisdom. Why not permit them to make their own free decision in the light of conditions which they will have to face and which we cannot possibly anticipate? That is the essence of the democratic process, and we would pay ourselves a highly dubious compliment in undertaking to shortcircuit it. This amendment is one which should not pass, and the Star hopes that it will never be written into the Constitution. Mr. President, this question and all the issues involved have been discussed innumerable times since the days of George Washington, and each and every time the proposal has come up it has been rejected. It has always been left to the people to decide in elections in which they participate. No temporary hysteria has been permitted to govern the right of the people to continue a man in an office if they felt he was needed or was doing a good job.

Why has this question been raised again, Mr. President? The people are not crying out for a two-term limitation. Then why has the issue been · raised again? Of course, the reason is that some Members of the Congress are anxious to do everything possible to discredit one of the most progressive Presidents this Nation has ever known. Those gentlemen may have the votes to pass this resolution; but, Mr. President, they do not have the votes and they do not have the record to discredit Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Roosevelt will be remembered as a true champion of the people long after his political snipers have been forgotten.

In closing, I should like to list a few of the many arguments against changing the Constitution. Let me say that these arguments have been culled from the statements of many Presidents and many distinguished Members of this body:

First, 170 years have passed without the adoption of a constitutional amendment limiting the term of the President, and without the rise of any dictators in this country. Let me add that on each occasion, unless there was a special requirement, the man who held the office has voluntarily asked to be permitted to step out of the · way.

Second, if the American people really feared a dictatorship they would have insisted long before now on such a constitutional amendment ,

Third, there is no danger of dictatorship through unlimited tenure, inasmuch as the people have the opportunity to turn out any incumbent every 4 years. Let me add that on a Nation-wide scale the amount of patronage involved is so infinitesimal that no man could hope to hold the office through patronage alone.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President--

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from West Virginia yield to the Senator from Illinois?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield.

.Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator agree With me that the limitation on the sovereign rights of the people under the proposed amendment really looks down the road toward dictatorship?

Mr. KILGORE. Let me say to the Senator from Illinois that I think the method pursued looks down the road toward oligarchy, rather than dictatorship. In other words, the Congress is trying to take a step that looks down the road toward dictatorship, but I would rather use the word "oligarchy" because it is being used by a group df people rather than one person.

Mr. LUCAS. Suppose a President of the United States has served two terms--

Mr. KILGORE. Or one and a fraction terms.

Mr. LUCAS. Or one and a fraction terms-and . suppose he has served his country faithfully and well, that he is a tried and popular executive, let us assume that the Nation faces an atomic emergency, if you please, when the issue may be whether we will live or die; what does the Senator think the people may do at that particular time, if they are strong enough in their demand that that man continue to represent them in the office of President, the Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding?

Mr. KILGORE. If they proceeded legally, of course, they would have to wait 7 or 8 years in order to change their Constitution, but if they were in dire distress, they might set up a dictator to avert disaster. In other words, in dire distress, we would be inviting a dictatorship by refusing to the people of the country the right to elect the man they wanted to act under the circumstances as they arose. ·

Mr. LUCAS. That is the very point I made a moment ago. In other words, the proposed constitutional amendment could well invite the people at some fu- ture time, in a great emergency, to look toward dictatorship, if it would mean continuing in power the man who was in the Presidency, even though under the Constitution he could not be reelected. That is the point I make.

Mr. KILGORE. In my opinion, the Senator from Illinois is absolutely correct, and I thank him for his remar k s.

Who constitutes our Government, but the people? We . hear about government, but the people themselves are the Government. We are their elected Representatives. The President is their Executive, the Supreme Court is an employee of the people. If the people cannot be trusted to vote intelligently, even a constitutional amendment limiting the Presidential term will not prevent the rise of a dictatorship, as has so well been stated by the distinguished Senator from Illinois.

' The fifth point is that the number of Presidential terms should not be limited, because we might deprive the American people of the services of the best man in any emergency, the man who knew the most about it, who had the inside facts, who was conversant with the situation. He might be prevented from being chosen, unless we had a dictatorship brought about by revolution, or unless we waited 7 years, and perhaps lost out.

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

Mr. Kn.GORE. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. We have just listened to the speech made by the President of the United States before the joint session of the Congress. The world is looking to the United States for leadership. We are the only free power that is left in the - world which has any inherent leadership right, a Nation which has existed for 150 years under the limitations placed in the Constitution by common consent. Ours is the most powerful nation on the globe, the finest nation, with the finest people, with the highest standards of living, and the highest type of civilization and now, at a time when the world is looking to us for leadership, it is proposed that we go in the opposite direction, by placing limitations on the rights of our own people to choose their own Executive. .

The people of this country · like a change, and they usually get it when they want it. It seems to me to the irony of fate that as we stand at the crossroads, so to speak, we are asked to place this kind of a limitation upon the rights of the people of the United States at a time when we are looked upon with awe and admiration by all the powers of the earth. Yet · at this moment we asked to change the Constitution drawn by the fathers, who knew plenty about free government. It is said that we are now better prepared, here on the floor of the United States Senate today, than the people of tomorrow will be. It is said we know more about what is good for the citizen and the youth of tomorrow than what they will know themselves.

I shall not undertake that responsibility, Mr. President, because I do not think there is any omnipotent power in the membership of the United States Senate that can tell the citizen of tomorrow that we know more than he does as to what will be good for him and his country. That is exactly what we are asked to do when we are asked to vote for the proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Senator from West Virginia well said a moment ago that such a change in the Constitution has never been made. It has been attempted all through the years, but it has never “jelled” at any time. I do not say that some do not have earnest convictions upon this subject, as men have in the past, but, as the Sena:­ tor well said, we know whence the idea comes. It cannot be camouflaged. I say we would be taking a serious step, an erroneous step, we would be moving in the wrong direction rather than in a progressive direction, if we approved this proposed amendment.

Mr. KILGORE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his able discussion of that point. I go a little further and say that in the history of the United States up until a crisis arose there has never been a President, no matter how powerful, who desired to be a dictator. Andrew Jackson unquestionably could have been elected for a third term had he desired it. Presidents have never sought to be dictators. They have been Americans. The present President of the United States, President Truman, has faced, and will continue to face, gigantic problems and upon their proper solution will depend our safety, the safety of our children, the safety of our grandchildren. Mr. President, it is not safe to trifle with futures, it is not safe to bind my children, my grandchildren; your children, your . grandchildren, by the decision of a group of Senators here whom we offered the compromise of putting to the people of the States in conventions, the consideration of but one question, not the question of taxes, not the question of appropriations, not the question of power interests, or railroad interests, or coal interests, or manufacturing interests, as the primary subject, but the question only of how many terms a President should have. That was · denied by a vote day before yesterday.

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr. President, will the Senator from West Virginia yield?

Mr. KILGORE. I yield to the Senator from California.

Mr. KNOWLAND. I should like to ask my distinguished colleague from West . Virginia if it is not a fact that of the first 21 amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 20 were ratified by State legislatures, and only one by State conventions.

Mr. KILGORE. The Senator from California is absolutely correct. To be perfectly frank, 10 of them, at least, were left out of the Constitution by inadvertence, and there was no question of the destiny of the United States involved in any of the 21, save one. Two others of those amendments, Mr. President, have been grossly abused.

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

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

Mr. KILGORE. I yield.

Mr. McGRATH. Mr. President, in view of the question by the Senator from California, pointing out that heretofore all amendments to the Constitution had been ratified by the State legislatures rather than by conventions, I should like to point out further that never but once in the history of our country has there been proposed to the Constitution of the United States an amendment which would restrict the power of the people. In every single instance, from the time of the adoption of the bill of rights down through the twenty-first amendment, every one of them was an extension of the power of the people and not a retraction thereof.

As the Senator who, in the Judiciary Committee, sponsored the proposal that this amendment be offered to conventions · rather than to legislatures, I did it, not out of any belief in the principle that we should limit the term of the presidency, but that if we were to submit such a proposal, then there should be obtained the greatest democratic expression on that issue it was possible to get, because, practically for the first time in the history of our country, we were taking something away from the people. So if it is to be true that - all amendments to the Constitution heretofore adopted have been approved by the political legislatures of our several States, it is likewise true that never before in our history had an amendment been proposed, excepting the prohibition amendment, that attempted to take anything away from the rights of the people. If a review is made from the beginning of the 10 amendments that make up the bill of rights, and if a further review is made of every one · of the other amendments to the Constitution, it will be found that inevitably they represented a seeking on the part of the people of further rights in their own hands.

I thank the Senator.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. IvEs in the chair.) Does the Senator from West Virginia yield to the Senator from Ohio? ~ ·

Mr. KILGORE. Before I yield, . I should like to say a few words, having yielded to the Senator from Rhode Island.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.

Mr. KILGORE. May I also say, Mr. President, that the Senator from Rhode Island discussed with me the very question raised, and on that occasion I agreed that if this proposal could be submitted to the people, I was perfectly willing to let the people decide it. But, when that privilege was denied, I then decided that I would not support a proposal to remove from the people of the United States the right to elect to the office of President whomever they wanted to elect. I now yield to the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. TAFT. I merely want to point out that every one of the first 10 amendments was a limitation on the right of the people. They protect the rights of individuals, but they deprived the people of rights. They deprived the people of the right to an establishment of religion in the United States. They deprived the people of the right to abridge freedom of speech or of the press-

Mr. KILGORE. Since the distinguished Senator from Ohio seems to be making a speech rather than making an inquiry, may I interrupt to say that while the amendment to which he refers interferes with the right of the people to establish a religion, it establishes the basic right of the United States of America, which is that everybody in the United States has a right, so long as it does not conflict wth the rights of others. Sixth. The free choice of the people would be limited by a constitutional amendment prohibiting a third term.

Mr. HILL. If the Senator will yield, I want to call attention to the fact that this inhibition of the Constitution is not on the people, not on their right to establish a religion; it is on Congress. It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. -

These limitations are on the Congress.

Mr. KILGORE. I thank the Senator . from Alabama. He has ably stated the case.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to answer? ·

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from West Virginia yield to the Senator from Ohio?

Mr. KILGORE. No; I am not going to yield until I finish. Then I shall yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio for the remainder of the afternoon. I may say that on numerous occasions I have asked the Senator from Ohio to yield, and he has refused. I want to complete my statement, because I think in an humble way it may have some historical value. Then I shall answer any question the Senator from Ohio may have.

Seventh. To limit the terms for President is to imply that the people cannot be trusted to exercise good judgment and to cast doubt on the theory of popular government-the theory upon which this Nation was founded. · Eighth. Limiting the term will m-ean limiting the sovereignty of the people, for the views of the majority should always be supreme.

Ninth. The Executive's effectiveness will be seriously impaired, as no one will obey and respect him if he knows that the · Executive cannot run again because of a constitutional limitation. I may say, Mr. President, that I have had the opportunity in the rast 8 years to study the record of governors in States in which there are limitations as to terms, and I have discovered that invariably the last half of the term was a record of failure. Almost invariably, incumbents have had trouble, because everybody realized they could not run again. There was no method by which they could complete their programs; but, so long as there is a possibility that they may run again, they can go ahead successfully.

Tenth. The President is expected to be a leader and to carry the responsibility for all actions done under his administration. In this connection I ask the Senators who proposed this amendment, When, in public forums, on the air, in newspaper interviews, in speeches, have they failed to cast upon the President the blame for anything that falls short of accomplishment during his administration, or that does not work out successfully? He is expected to be the leader, and he is charged with the responsibility of carrying out his program. If he cannot run again, he loses all opportunity of getting his program through, of making it successful.

Mr. President, at this point I ask unanimous consent to have included in the REcORD, as a part of my remarks, a speech by the late Senator Simeon D. Fess, of Ohio, delivered on February 9, 1928, against the La Follette anti-thirdterm resolution. I w.ould like to have it added at the end of my speech, in full, as it goes into the question of the third term.

, There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

(See exhibit ' 1.)

Mr. KILGORE. I would also like to have printed in the RECORD following the speech of the late Senator Fess, an address delivered by the late United States Senator Timothy 0. Howe, of Wisconsin, in March 1880 1 which speech was printed in the North American Review, at that time. I should like to have it made a part of my remarks.

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

(See exhibit 2.)

Mr. KILGORE. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the CoNGRESSIONAL RECORD the full text of the · editorial from the Washington Evening Star on the question of this amendment.

There being-no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

(See exhibit 3.) ~

Mr. KILGORE. In order to make this question clear from a historical viewpoint, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD two excerpts from the Congressional Digest of 1938, entitled "The · United States Constitution and the Presidency." ·

There being no objection, the excerpts were ordered to be printed in the RECORD.

(See exhibit 4.)

ExHmiT 1

SENATOR SIMEON D. FESS

When the question arose in reference to the Chief Executive, the convention originally proposed a term • of 7 years, with ineligibility for reelection. When a vote was . called upon that proposal Washington was included in the Ust of those who voted against it. Although he did not make any comment at the time, later on, as is well understood, Washington had a conversation with Jefferson on the matter, _ and they did not agree. Also, Washington wrote a reply to General : Lafayette, who specifically addressed a letter - to Washington on the support of ineligibility to reelection. In the reply of General Washington he took a decided position against the Jeffersonian view. So it was decided not to limit tenure. The Constitutional Convention did fix a short term, but kept open the question of tenure, so that if experience might count for anything it would be utilized in the administration of the Government.

I think that the most concrete illustration of the difference between a limited term and a limited tenure will be found in the case of members of both legislative bodies. The term of Members of the House and Members of the Senate is fixed, but their tenure is not limited. Neither is there a prohibition of eligibility to reelection in either case, . nor is there in the case of the Chief Executive. In other words, the Constitutional Convention decided in both cases that a limitation on tenure was not wise, and that the question of ' eligibility to reelection should be kept open as a privilege on the part of the people.

In the case of the executive branch of the Government we have in practice both the limit of term and the limit of tenure. Custom thus f a r has limited the tenure of the Executive to two terms. That may have the force of law, but there is no constitutional inhibition against extending the term of the Executive beyond the second term.

Neither is there any inhibition in regard to the Members of this body-the Senate-or the Members of the House of Representatives. The rule in the House is limited term , but unlimited tenure, upon the basis . that experience is of value in legislation.

The same thing is true in this body-the Senate. It may be of interest to know that in the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, of Virginia, the father of the famous Bill of Rights of Virginia, raised the question of limiting the tenure of Members of the Senate and argued that Senators should not be elected for more than one term and employed in his argument a force that is second only in effect to that which he applied to the Executive. When the vote was taken, and the tenure . of Members of the Senate was not limited to one term, George Mason gave it as his mature judgment that a great mistake had been made by the Constitutional Convention.

As we believe that unlimited tenure in this body employs experience and capitalizes ability, so it seems to me it is equally true in the case of the President.

I am aware that the President of the United States is under a burden that it is quite difficult for him to sustain from the pressure that comes to him from outside sources that is made possible by his reelection. In other words, Presidents break under the burdens of the office very largely through attempting to respond to requests that cannot be met. ~

I do not believe I speak amiss when I say I cannot avoid the thought that the life of the late President Harding-who seemed to _ permit his personality to go out to everyone who appeared in his presence-was very much shortened by the burdens of the office. Not every President would be so affected. I have thought that it might be wise for us to pass a constitutional amendment to ex- tend the term of the President and limit to one term; but it has never been looked upon with favor. After all, I suppose it would be still better for us to continue the practice of limiting term but not limiting tenure except by the vote of the people, as is done in the House, and as is done in the Senate. It is not a mooted question that the third term that was denied originally to the Presidents who might have been elected to a third term 1-Vas not denied them by the people. It was simply never requested by those who might have achieved a third term.

There has been much confusion about Washington's attitude. Over and over again we hear it stated in this and other bodies that Washington set the example by turning away the honor of a third election as if it were a matter of principle with him, instead of a matter of purely personal convenience. I admit that the precedent was set by Washington. I admit that he was not elected to a third term; but I will not admit that he believed that a third term was vicious, or that he ever thought it was unpatriotic, or that he thought it would not be a wise course. The truth about the matter is that when he asked Madison to draw up in convenient shape what would suit him for a farewell address it was at the end of his first term. There was not any doubt of his intention to retire at the end of the first term. In that address I find these words, which are constantly quoted by the proponents of this resolution as being the words of Washington:

"May I be allowed further to add as a consideration far more important that an early example for rotation in an office of so high and delicate a nature may equally accord with the republican spirit of our Constitution and the ideas of liberty and safety entertained by the people."

"Rotation in office!" . That is stated as · being in accord with our views of democratic government. ·

That statement was written by Madison. That statement was not in the President's Farewell Address when he finally delivered it to the American people. . This particular item of Madison's draft was never accepted by President Washington.

On the other hand washington, because of developments tn Europe and our complications on foreign affairs, decided that he would again a,ccept the nomination and election. Then at . the approach · of the _. end of the second term, if he had any klea whatever of objecting to a third term on the ground that it would be unpatriotic or that it would not be . a wise course, rather than upon the ground of his personal · tastes and personal conveniences, it would have been in .. that address that the statement would have · been made, but the farewell address of the President of 1796 can be scanned from the first word to the last and there will be 'found no hint of h.is objection to a third term · in principle.

As to Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, they represented an entirely different school of politics . . There were two well-defined schools of politics in the Constitution,al Con- vention, and while Jefferson was not in that convention he . did have his representatives there, especially in:- Madison and in George Mason, of Virginia. ·

- Jefferson emphasized the · idea of · liberty. Jefferson feared autocracy . . Jefferson . was afraid of too much power, too much government. However, we may explain the source of his fear, that was fundamental with him, : and I regard it as tremendously important · not only in any study of our political theory but in · the development of · our American political . theory .

While Jefferson; therefore , was not in the : Constitutional Convention tO . work out his ideas, be was in contact and . communication with the · men who were there · who represent- · ed his views. He was quite normally com- mitted ' to the idea :Of one term and no . reelection, but I have foUnd no indication anywhere that he was in favor of making the term 4 years, and the Executive ineligible for reelection · with that short a term.

Jefferson's opposition tp a third term was better fortified and more - warranted than any opposition to a third term in this . day would be. Jefferson lived at a time when the Re-" public was- young; when 'Ye had -. no friends. Jefferson · sat in the ' Legislature of Virginia, which was not then a sovereign State, but a colony · which ought to have had the right of local government, and - he saw the legislatUre o(his own State, of which he was a part, dissolved by a royal governor _ appointed by the King of England .

Jefferson had reason for fearing the dan- gers of Executive usurpation. He . also 1lad · reason for fearing the man on horseback, because Napoleon was in the saddle at that time. There is not the slightest fear of that today, ts there?

Whatever legitimate grounds there may have been against a third term in the early history of our country, those grounds do not now obtain.

With the growth of industry in America, with great masses of our people employed in factories located in great centers of population and wholly dependent upon the continuance of their occupations for a livelihood, I confess I sometimes tremble when I think of the possibility of any derangement in . industrial conditions such as might be caused by a great depression which would cause populations to suffer for want of work. - In case that industry should fail to give employment, operatives be thrown out of employment, and a great strike ensue, I can imagine that, under certain leadership, a despotism might ensue. .. However, I do not think that a vote in the Senate on the question of a third Presidential term would have as much effect as a . fly on a dog's ear in a case such as that.

For a hundred years before the Federal Constitution the Thirteen Colonies were training themselves for government in which all the people should participate, and then, after 100 years ot such training, there was convened the Constitutional Convention, which framed an instrument, containing only seven articles, that has been the bulwark of our liberty and our organic law for 139 years, during which time the country has never experienced a revolution. I do not think there is in America any danger at all of what has taken place in Italy. I do not for a moment think it possible.

There are eight-nations in Europe now that might be regarded as being under dictators, all the result of the World War. There is not , any possibility of that sort of thing taking place here in America. We view the problems of government on an entirely different plane, and I think it is the result of 250 years of training.

If Washington would have permitted himself to run in 1796 he would have been elected · without doubt. ~ · think there is no doubt that if Andrew Jackson would have given any intimation that he · wanted to succeed himself in 183 · 7, instead of really appointing his own successor in Martin Van Buren, lie could have elected himself m · more easily or as easily as to have selected his suceessor.

I have not the slightest - doubt that if Presi­ · dent Lincoln had been spared · to complete his second term, because of the popularity he . had enjoyed and the confidence and love he had inspired, he coulCI have been reelected. I also have not any doubt if Colonel ' Roosevelt had been nominated in 1912 without opposition, · although having served, as he claimed, two · terms, that be would have been easily elected, and if de . death had not taken him when it did there would not have been a single opposing candidate against him iii 1920, and he would have been overwhelmingly elected in that year, notwithstanding the fact - that he had been twice President. I think there is no doubt about what would have taken place in elections in spite of the third-term tradition if t _ these persons had announced themselves - candidates.

· r'have looked upon the term of 1 year and 7 months of the present President as a fraction o! a term, I did not count that as a full term. I looked upon the close of the present term as not the completion of two · terms. That is the reason why I constantly - attempted to refute the idea that if .. President Coolidge were renominated there would be any . violation of the third-term tradition. It would . be a tenure longer tball 8 years; it would be an innovation to- that extent-that js, no President in our history has ever served more than 8 · year!T-bUt, while it would be a year !llld 7 months · more than . 8 years, it would not be a violation of the third-term tradition. If that woUld be a violation of it ; - the;n 1 year more would be, 01· 1 day more would be; and 1 , have thought that an un- · tenable position.

I would - say frankly today that if the way opens for the nomination of President Coolidge I do not hesitate to say that he will be elected by one of the largest majorities ever given in an election, in spite of the tradition ' n that friends of mine say would be broken on the third-term matter.

I have noted with the greatest interest the Democratic planning and strategy that has surrounded the name of P1·esiden t Coolidge ever since the suggestion was made that · he might be renominated. I admire the brilliant strategy. It 1s not only seen among Democratic Senators but it is read in every great Democratic newspaper. They are taking this view: The men who say that President Coolidge . could not accept a nomination tendered to him when it is not sought because it would be bad faith, because it would be insincerity, Because it would show a lack . of character, are expressing a wish rather . than a Judgment. There is not any doubt about that. -

E~BIT 2 SENATOR TIMOTHY O . " HOWE

The Springer resolution is the first echo of George Mason ' s speech. Among all the men who debated the Constitution, either in the Federal or the several State conventions, there are . but two who are open to the suspicion of having favored a legal restriction upon the right to reelect Presidents. Those two are Melancthon Smith, · of New York, and George Mason, of Virginia . But it . should be remembered in exculpation of Smith and Mason that they were open), trying to defeat the · Constitution. They were opposed to it. They had not sworn to support it. Ii was not unnatural that th_ey should raise unreal objections · to it.

The men who made the Constitution struggled to secure the reeligibility of President: They _ surrendered preferences, abandoned cherished ideas, and devised new · plans, in order to preserve tlie right to repeat the elections a1 1, d prolong the services of able and upright Presidents. They could hardly have expected that within a century a generation :w:ould appear whose representatives would dare to proclaim that the exercise of that simple right for" which they sacrified so much was “unwise, unpatriotic, and fraught with peril to our free institutions.”

The resolution refers to the precedent established by Washington and other Presidents, in retiring after the second term, and declares that precedent t.o have become part of ' our republican system. But a majority of our Presidents have retired after a first term. ' Why should the two-term precedent become a part of our governmental -system more than the one-term . precedent? It may be said that General Washington chose to · retire at the end -- of ' his second te-rm. The · fact was so; but it is difficult to see how General Washington's refusal, in the latter part of the · last century, to serve a third term should debar the people, in the latter pa,rt of this century or the next, from choosing a man, a third time who will serve. But if . General Washington's personal tastes are equivalent to a constitutional limitation, then . the one-term rule should prevail and not the two"'term. He ardently desired · to retire at the end of his first term. He avowed that desire often and earnestly. He · assigned his reasons frankly - and repeatedly. , edl~. His reasons _ were personal ; not patriotic. He never pretended that he sought retirement to promote the public welfare. but only to gratify his own feelings : He said to Mr. Jefferson that "he had through the whole course of the war, · and most particularly at the close of it, uniformly declared his resolution t.o retire f1·9m public affairs, and never to act in any public office; that be had retired under that firm resolution; that tlle government , however, which had been formed, being found eviden'tly too inefficacious, and it being supposed that his aid was of some consequence toward bringing the people to consent to one of sufficient efficacy for their own good, he consented to come into the convention, and on the same motive - , after much pressing, to take a part in the new Government , and get it under way. That were he to continue longer, it might give room to say that, having tasted the sweets of office, he could not do without them; that he really felt himself growing old, his bodily health less firm; his memory, always bad, becoming worse, and perhaps the other faculties of his mind showing a decay to others of which he was insensible himself; that this apprehension particularly oppressed him. That he found, moreover, his activity lessened, business therefore more irksome, and tranquillity and retirement become an irresistible passion."

His personal wishes were overruled. He consented to a reelection and was unanimously reelected. Envious of · his overshad- owing fame, jealous of his commanding influence with the people, fearful that they might again refuse to permit his retirement at the end of his second term, the hungry pack, who longed to succeed him, commenced systematically to tear him down. The air was filled with calumny, with caricature, with lampoons , and lies. Partisan malice pursued him with that same houndlike ferocity with which it pursued President Grant during his second term. He did not bear it as Grant bore it. No man saw President Grant quail before the gibes of his enemies or before the guns of his country ' s enemies. Washington was s t ung to the quick by the injustice of his countrymen.

Before the first year of his second term was ended, Jefferson reports that at a Cabinet mee t ing "the President was much inflamed; got into one of those passions when he cannot command himself; ran on much on the personal abuse which had been bestowed on him; defied any man on earth to produce one single act of his, since he had · been in the Government, which was not done on the purest motives; that he had never repented but once having slipped the moment of resigning his office, and that was every moment since; that by God he had rather . be on his farm than to be made emperor of the world; and yet that they · were charging him with wanting to be a king."

Washington, like Grant--;the father of his coun t ry like the savior of it-was accused of Caesarism. It is not so very strange that 3,000,000 people just emerged from monarchy should be jealous of imperial designs . But it is pa _ passing strange that 40 , 000,000 just swaggering into the second century Of freedom should be scared by so soft a spook.

No one expected to dissuade President Washington from the retirement he so passionately coveted beyond the expiration · of his second term. He was 61 years old when that term commenced. He was 65 when it ended. He died before the next term ended. The number of his enemies had · multiplied. Their hate was intensified. Jefferson had left his Cabinet. Madison was alienated from him. He had been Compelled to recall Monroe from France. He yearned for rest, and he Inflexibly sought it. such was the example of our first President. ·

No one asked Mr. Adams to accept a third term. But few asked him to accept a second. · His example, therefore, furnishes no more sanction to the Springer resolution than does the example of Mr. Washington.

Mr. Jefferson furnishes a precedent . more to the purpose. The legislatures of several States formally invited him to become a candidate for a third term. He as formally declined the invitation. He stated his reasons for declining as follows: "That I should lay down my charge at a proper period is as much a · duty as to have borne it faithfully. If some termination to the services of the Chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution , or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will , in fact , become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance. Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind , I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle, and I should unwillingly be the person who, dis- regarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor , should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office. * * • Truth ,. also, requires me to add that I am sensible · to that decline which advancing years brings on; and, feeling their physical , I ought not . to doubt their mental, effect . Happy if I am the first to perceive and obey this admonition of nature, and to solicit a retreat from cares too great for the wearied faculties of

Those reasons are satisfactory. Undoubtedly, every public functionary should lay down his "charge at a proper period." But the proper period is just as cl-early that which suits the public convenience, and not that which suits the convenience of the individual. History has already exploded the assumption of Mr. Jefferson that, if the term of service for the Chief Magistrate be not fixed, he will continue to hold it for life. The term of service is not fixed • by any law or any practice, and yet not. one-half our · Chief Magistrates have, in fact, been elected even the second time. · "A representative government responsible at short periods of election" is undoubtedly wise, and "That which produces the greatest sum of happiness 'to mankind." But the right to elect Government agents at short ' t periods does not involve the necessity of electing a new agent at each recurring period . Elections should be not only periodical but free. If the people really wished · Mr. Jefferson to serve a third term and he refused to do so, then the election of 1808 was not free but restricted. The people had not free choice but restricted choice, and their freedom was impaired by the act of Mr. Jefferson. But Mr. Jefferson is not exposed to that imputation. He could have assigned a better reason for declining to serve a third term than any of those · he did assign. That better reason was, that he could not be elected · to a third term . That. fact had been made quite manifest at the time he declined to be a candidate. Nothing is clearer in history than that he waited for just that manifestation of public opinion before he did decline. The legislature of Vermont first threw his flag to the breeze on the 5th of November, 1806. More than 2 years before his second term expired, the legislature of Vermont addressed to Mr. Jefferson a formal invitation to become a candidate for a third term. In December following the legislature of Georgia joined fn that invitation. Maryland did the - same in January 1807. Rhode Island in February, and ' New York and Pennsylvania in March, followed their example. Mr. Jefferson is known to have been . a most diligent correspondent . During · all those months he was constantly ' receiving letters from individuals, from _ municipalities, from religious societies, · and _. political organizations. He replied to such promptly ; becomingly. _ But to . the legislatures of these great States he deigned no reply for more than a year after the first one addressed him. On December 4, 1807, the Legislature of New Jersey having joined in the invitation of Vermont, Mr. Jefferson determined to wait no longer. He addressed letters to Vermont, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, declining to be a candidate for reelection. In stating his reasons for d _ declining, he employed the same terms in each letter. Those letters · bear date of the lOth of December, 1807. They were given to the public in the columns of the Aurora, at Philadelphia , on the 19th of the same month. Up to that time no one had heard an objection to a third term. Seven States had asked Mr. Jefferson to accept a third term. Nobody had objected to his having another term because he had enjoyed two. What he himself thought of a third term he had diligently concealed from the public during the whole agitation. Two days before his letter appeared in the Aurora, that journal copied from the Trenton True American an article commencing in these words: "Will Mr. Jefferson . consent to serve another term as President? is a question which almost every Republican anxiously asks, but which no one can certainly answer." (The political party organized by Jefferson was first known as the Republican Party, but later became the Democratic Party, as it is known today.) The States which at that time had declared for a third term cast 62 electoral votes. North Carolina subsequently joined the number. North Carolina then gave 11 votes. That would make the number of electoral votes which had declared for Mr. Jefferson 73.

But the States of Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, South Carolina, and, worst of all, Virginia, where . both Jefferson and Madison had their homes, obstinately refused to join in the Jefferson boom. They were Republican States, they voted for Madison, and . they were accorded 55 electoral votes.

Then the States of New Hampshire, Massa- chusetts, Connecticut, and Delaware cast 39 electoral votes. They were Federal States, not Republican. They .voted for Pinckney, and would not vote for Jefferson or Madison either.

Of course, when it was ascertained that there were 39 v · votes which no Republican could secure, and 55 Republican votes which Jefferson could not receive, but Madison could, the former had excellent reasons for declining a third term for all his successors. When satisfied, after an active canvass of more than 13 months, that the people did not wish to prolong his services beyond a second term, he did well to recognize the fact. He would have done better if he had not attempted to frame his disappointment into a law which ' should prevent any of his successors from serving longer than he did. There is ground for believing that if Mr. Van Buren had not secured the succession to General Jackson, the latter would have been retained another term ; That expedient was discussed at the time. The Herald, a Democratic newspaper of Philadelphia, then said:

"The present attitude of Judge White, of Tennessee, appears · rather calculated to produce an impression of division in the Democratic ranks of a serious character. But this danger will vanish when we reflect that if it should appear formidable , when the national convention meets, that body will dissipate it in a few minutes by the nomination of Andrew Jackson for a third term, a measure every way calculated to avert the defeat of the Democratic Party by the Whigs, and more than justifiable by every principle involved in the contest of the party who are fighting for popular rights and democratic government."

But _ constitutions, history, precedents, and statesmen have been misconstrued before the era of the Springer resolution. Rarely, however, has the human understanding been so rudely insulted as by that strange fulmination.

To tell rational creatures that "free institutions" are imperiled by the reelection of one who for 8 years has proved a faithful magistrate, but are insured by the election of one who has never been proved at all, seems to be the extreme of audacity. That is to say, that our institutions would have been endangered by the election of George Washington to a third term, but were preserved by the election of John Adams; that is to say, that our republican system would have been threatened by a third election of James Madison or Andrew Jackson, but was preserved by the fortunate election of James Monroe and Martin Van Buren.

"I have no other lamp by which to guide my feet," said Patrick Henry, "than the light of experience."

When science fails and revelation is silent , one has no better light than that. And, if experience teaches anything, it teaches that, the longer a public servant has been faithful, the surer he is to be faithful. That' is as true of the head of the Nation as of the head of a bureau. The railway manager who should dismiss a conductor, or the banking company which should dismiss a cashier who had been faithful for 8 or . for 18 years, upon the presumption that because he had been faithful so long it was unsafe to trust him longer, would be deemed insane.

It is even more irrational to conclude that one who has for 8 years scrupulously guarded the solemn trusts reposed in an American President is for that reason to be more distrusted than a new man.

.. Thou hast been faithful over a few things , I will make thee ruler over many ; " is the practical wisdom approved by the Saviour. The Honorable Mr. Springer teaches us that he who has been faithful over all things for 8 years should be trusted With nothing thereafter . The world will make a mistake if it shall turn from Jesus of Nazare t h to follow Mr. Springer , of Dlinois.

When the Constitutional Convention had finally agreed to the _ plan of a President chosen for 4: years, and reeligible at the pleasure of the people, Mr . Ale xa nder Hamilton said he liked the new modification on the whole better than th a t in the printed report. In this the President was a monster , elected for 7 years and inelig i ble afterward; having great powers in appointments to office, and continually tempted by this constitutional disqualification, to abuse them in order to subvert the Government. Mr. Springer's resolution resurrects the mons t er which H a milton denounced, and which · the Convention with · such diligence buried.

The Constitution, as finally agreed to, was not satisfactory to every member of the Convention . Many refused to sign it. Each one of those distinguished gen t lemen has left on record his reasons for refusing to sign the Constitution. But not one of them enumel·­ ates the reeligibility of the President as an objection to the instrument. Did the House of Representatives affirm a peril to our free institutions which does not exist , or did those clear-sighted cavilers, eager as they were to · find fault, fall to see a · peril which did not exist?