March 12, 1947 (3)

ExHIBIT 3

[From the Washington Evening Star of

February 24, 1947]

THIRD TERM BAN

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.

It is probably true that , ln the absence of unusual circumstances, the best interests of the country are served when a President does not -serve more than two terms. There is nothing magical, of course, about ' two terms, and it is worth noting that the Senators and Representatives who are supporting the proposed amendment apparently see no inconsistency in having themselves reelected to as many successive terms as possible. Still, in the absence of exceptional conditions, an excellent argument can be made for the proposition that a President shoUld serve two terms at most, and then turn the job over to someone else.

Implicit in this , however ; is recognition of the fact that in some future grave emergency the national interests might be served best by continuing a President in office for more than two terms, and the trouble with the · proposed amendment is that it would make this Virtually impossible. There are those who _ say that the amendment, if adopted, coUld always - ys be repealed, but this is an argument which overlooks two things-first, the time element, and, second, the very important fact that a constitutional amendment, once adopted, cannot be repealed except by vote of two-thirds of the States. Thus, a decision which might be vital to all of the people could be controlled by the whims or the procrastination of 17 States.

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 1n 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 short circuit it. This amendment is one which · should not pass, and the Star hopes that it will never be written into th~ Constitution.

Emmrr 4 l From the Congressional Digest J

THE UNITE~ STATES CONSTITUTION AND THE

PRESIDENCY I. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES

As finally adopted by the Convention and ratified by the States the Constitution contains the following provisions regarding the Presidency:

Article II, section 1, paragraph 1: The Executive power shall be vested in a President of th~ United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years and, together with the Vice President, chosen for · the same term, be elected as follows.

Article U, section 1, paragraph 2: Each State - shall appoint, . in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct , a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State , may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative , or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Article II, section 1 , paragraph 3: The Congress . may determine the time - of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their voters; whic'h day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article II, section 1, paragraph 4: No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of 35 years, and been 14 years a resident within the United . States.

Article II, section 1, paragraph 5; In the _ case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to . discharge the powers and duties of the said office the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law pro- . vide for the case of removal,- death, resignation, or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall · act accordingly, until the disability be removed : or a President shall be elected.

Article · U, section 4, paragraph 1; The . President, Vice President, and all civil officers . of the United States, shall be removed from · office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. ·

· II. THE CONVENTION AND THE PRESIDENTIAL TERM

1787: On May 29 Edmund Randolph, Governor of Virginia , presented to the Constitut tional Convention a plan of government consisting of 15 resolutions, No. 7 of which provided for a single executive "to be chosen by the national legislature for a term . of years "' * • to be ineligible a second time." The Randolph resolutions were known as the Virginia plan. On the same day - a plan was presented by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina whereby the Executive was to be elected for a term of years (left blank 1Ji the resolution), and was to be re eligible. Both plans we're referred to the Committee of the Whole.

On June 1 the question or instituting an executive was taken up by the convention. On a motion for a 7-year term, New York _ New Jersey. Delaware, Pennsylvania , and Virginia voted · "aye"; Connecticut, - North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia voted "no . " The vote of the Massachusetts dele­ . gates was diVided and the motion was declared carried.

On June 2 a motion to make - the Executive ineligible after 7 years was carried, 7 to 2 . Ayes: Massachusetts, New York, Delaware , Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolin a , Virginia; noes: Connecticut and Georgia. Divided: Pennsylvania. ·

On . June 15 Mr. Patterson of New Jersey offered a substitute for the Randolph plan . Article 4 of the Patterson plan recommended the election · of an executive to continue in office for a term of years and to be ineligible for a second time. · ~ · Alexander Hamilton of New York then proposed a plan, article 4 -of · which recommended that the supreme executive author t y be vested in a "Governour" to be elected to serve during good behavior. _

OJ?. June 19 the Randolph plan was reported by the Committee of the Whole. I t provided that the Executive should be elected for a 7- y ea - term and should be ineligible a second . time. On July 17 an amendmen t striking out the provision for "ineligibili ty for a second time" was adopted by the con- vention by a 6 to 4 vote.

An amendment to strike - out "7 years" with reeligibility a n d substitute "during good behavior" as the term of the Executive wa s defeated, but it was subsequently agreed to reconsider the vote the next day;

The subject was defeated thoroughly and several amendments were passed and later rejected.

One suggestion was that the Executive b e elected for 20 years. A suggestion that . the Executive be appointed by the National Legislature was opposed on the ground that the Executive would be too dependent on the Legislature and, in order to get rid of that dependence, the . expedient of making him ineligible a second time had been proposed . Oil July 25 the final action not having been taken in · the meantime. the question of the selection of the Executive was again taken up. A motion . that the Executive be chosen by the Legislature with the proViso that no person be eligible for more than 6 year s . in any 12 years was defeated by a 6 to 6 vote . On July 26 it was moved that the report of the Committee of the Whole on the selection . of the Executive be reinstated, viz , · "That the ~ecutive be appointed for 7 years and be ineligible a second time."

This motion was carried by a 7 to 3 vote . The above motion · related to the term of · office only. The entire resolution, providing that a National Executive be instituted, to be chosen by the National Legislature for a term of 7 years and to be ineligible for a second time was then passed by a '1 to 3 vote. Foc it were New Hampshire, Connecticut, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, and · Georgia. Agains t it were Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Mary- · land. Virginia was divided. Massachusett s - was not on the · fioor .

On July 26 the convention referred its proceedings (from July 23) to the Committee on Detail, a.nd adjourned to meet again on · Monday, August 6.

On August 6 the Committee on Detail reported the resolution, unchanged in its provisions regarding the 7-year term withou t reelection.

On . August 24 article X , which contained the above resolution, was taken up.

On September 4 the Committee of Eleven , to Which various resolutions had been referred, recommended that certain alteration: be made to the report of the Committee of the Whole. Among the alterations suggested . was the provision relating to the term of the Executive which , as reported from the committee o! Eleven , read: "He shall hold his office during the term of 4 years."

On September 5 the question of the selection of the Executive was debated, Messrs . Pinckney and Rutledge of South Carolina speaking against reeligibility to a second , term.

On September 6 Mr. Hamilton said he had refrained from joining in the discussion bec a use of his dislike of the proposed - scheme of government in general, but as he intended to support the plan he wished to offer a few remarks. He favored reeligibility but felt that if the executive head were appointed by the Leg i slature he would be tempted to make use of corrupt influence to be continued in office. Therefore, it seemed to him peculiarly desirable that some other mode of election be devised.

A motion to make the term 7 and one to make it 6 - years instead of 4, as suggested by the Committee of Eleven, were defeated.

On September 15 it was finally agreed that the President be chosen by an electoral , college for 4 years, n . o. liPltt .as · to . reeligibility being fixed. . . · -

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution as engrossed and agreed upon was signed by all the members of the convention present except Messrs. Gerry of Massachusetts, and Mason and Randolph of Virginia.

EFFoRTS IN CONGRESS To · CHANGE , THE .f'RESIDENTIAL ~M, 1800-~928

1788: On April 23, Washington wrote a letter to Lafayette in which ·. be . stated that be differed widely from Jefferson as - to the ' necessity ()r expediency o! rotation in the executive department and that be could see no propriety "in precluding ourselves from the services of any man who, in some great emergency, shall be decreed universally most capable of serving the public."

1788: On May 2, 1788, Thomas Jefferson - on wrote to Washington that be felt great concern on account of the possible reeligibility of the President under the Constitution. "This I fear wm make an office for life." Jefferson advocated a constitutional amendment which would fix the Presidential term at 7 years and declare the President ineligible for reelection.

1796: Washington published his Farewell Address on September 17, 1796 , in which he expressed his · desire to retire and _ not be a candidate for another term.

1800: The election of 1800 was thrown into Congress since Jefferson and Burr received an equal number of electoral votes. Jefferson w a s chosen President by the House and Aaron Burr became Vice President.

1803: Following . the contested election of 1800, resolutions were introduced in Congress recommending constitutional amendments against a third term. Among these was a resolution debated in the Senate in 1803 , "that no person who has been tw i ce successively elected President shall be eligible as Pr e sident until 4 years elapse, when be may be eligible to office for 4 years and no longer." The resolution was rejected in the Senate by a vote of 4 to 25.

1804: On September 25, 1804, the twelfth amendment was ratified and adopted, which p r o vi ded for the sep a rate election of the P r esid e nt and Vice President. There was no att e mpt made in this amendment to provide for a limit a tion of reeligibility of the Presiden t.

1E07: On December 10, 1807, Jefferson wrote a le tt er to the Vermont Legislature in which he re p eated the fear th a t if the Constitution or some precedent did not fix the Presidential term it might become an inher·ited office. ·

1809 : Madison followed Jefferson, and a l so held office for two terms , after which he vo l unt a rily retired.

1824: Monroe, who followed Madison for tion. t w o terms, also retired voluntarily.

1824: In this ye a r the Senate passed a jo i nt resolution by a vote of 36 to 3 pr o v i ding that no man should be chosen President for more th an t wo terms . No action was t ak en on th is re s oluti o n i n the House.

XC III- - 1 !: 4

1824: The Presidential election of 1824 was again thrown into Congress, and John Quincy Adams was chosen President by the House. He served only one term.

1826: The contested election of · 1824 produced a great many joint resolutions recommending amendments to the constitution on the method of election of the President and the Presidential term. Thirty-eight had to do with the choice of Presidential electors. Ten were intended to limit the President to one term, some of 4, some of 6 years.

· 1826: One of these Senate resolutions, recommending a . limit of two terms for the President, was passed by the Senate by a vote of 32 to 7. Nothing was done on the resolution, . however, in the House.

1828: Andrew Jackson was elected in 1828- and reelected in 1832. In hiS first annual message to Congress, in 1829, he recommended that the electoral college be abol- isbed, that the President be elected by direct vote, and that the . President be limited to a single term of either 4 or 6 years . . This recommendation was repeated by him in subsequent annual messages to Congress.

During his administration and following his recommendations 21 joint resolutions were introduced in Congress, dealing with a limitation of the Presidential term. Some of these recommended a single term of 4 or 6 years, others provided against a third term and still others against more than two consecutive terms. None of these was acted upon by Congress. ·

1836: In Van Buren's administration 10 one-term joint resolutions were presented in Congress upon which no action was taken. 1840: Harrison was elected in 1840. In his first inaugural speech in 1841 he affirmed his recommendation . for a single Presidentia-l term, and said in conclusion: "Under no circumstances will I consent to serve a second term." ·

President Harrison died a month lat-er, in April 1841, and Vice President Tyler became President. He was the first Vice President to become President.

1841: In 1841 the legislatures of 8 States, Vermont, Indiana, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island sent one-term amendments to Congress. 1842: In 1842 the Legislature of Kentucky sent a one-term amendment to Congress.

1844: In 18t14 the Whig Party inserted a. · one-term plank in its Baltimore platform. 1860: Lincoln was elected. · 1864: Lincoln was reelected.

1865: President Lincoln was ass a ssinated and was succeeded by Vice President JohnJohnson suggested in a special message to Congress a single term for the President. During his administration 12 joint resolutions recommending single Presidential terms were introduced in Congress , but no action was taken upon them.

1868: The question of the Presidential term was not an issue in the campaign of 1868 , since the vote to impe a ch P r e si dent Johnson was taken immedi a tely before the meeting of the Republican Convention in that year. Ulysses S. Grant was nominated by the Republican Convention on the first ballot and elected.

1872: Grant was renomin a ted in 1872. In this y-ear the liberal Republican and the Democratic Parties, both of which nominated Greeley, demanded that the offices of the Government cease to be a matter of arbitrary favoritism and patronage and that to this end it is imperatively required that no President shall be a candidate for reelec­ 1875: In 1875, when it became known that G r ant would b~ a c a ndidate for a third nomi n ation, the State Republican conventions of Ohio, Iowa, Minnesota, . Massachusetts, and New York , and Pennsylvania passed antithird-term resolu t ions .

The action of the Pennsylvania convention elicited a reply from President Grant in which he stated that be never sought the · office and did not wish a third term. He also stated, however, that the Constitution did not restrict the Presidential term to two terms, and that under certain circumstances it might be unfortunate to make a change at the end of 8 years.

1875: On December 15, 1875, the House passed a resolution, introduced by William M. Springer, of illinois, Democrat. The resolution was adopted by the House without debate by a vote of 234 to 18, with 38 not voting. The resolution read:

".Resolved, That in the opinion of this House the precedent established by Washington and other President& 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 fraught with peril to our free institutions."

1875: On December 17, Horace Francis · Page, of California, Republican, offered the following ' resolution in the House:

"Whereas the Constitution of the United States, as framed by the fathers of the Republic, imposes no limit upon the eligibility of any citizen to the office of President further than that be shall be native-born and of a certain age and time of residence: Therefore be it •

"Resolved, That in the judgment of this House the right of selecting candidates for the office of President . can only be lawfully exercised by the people under existing constitutional restrictions, and . has never been delegated by the people to the House of Representatives or to any Members of the same; and that any attempt by the House of Representatives to limit or forestall the public will on a question of such importance is an invasion of powers reserved to the people at large, to be freely exercised by them without any interference from any legislative body whatever."

, Mr. Page's motion to bring this resolution to a vote was defeated by a vote of 30 against 1876: President Hayes was elected in 1876 and in his first inaugural address in 1877 recommended an amendment to the Constitution limiting the President to a single term of 6 years.

1876: Again the Presidential election was thrown into the House, from which came the famous Hayes-Tilden election contest. After Hayes was chosen President, be recommended a single 6-year term for the President in his first inaugural address.

1877: In this year, Representative Springer offered another resolution embodying President Hayes' recommendation as to a single term and other reforms. No action was taken on the resolution because there could be no nomination of a candidate in 1880 who would have had two consecutive terms. 1880: In the Republic a n Convention of 18 8 0 Grant was seriously consider e d for a third term, many people being of the opinion that the lapse of 4 years made Grant eligible '?i t hout breaking the anti-third-term tradition. Grant led all other candidates on 33 ballots, but Garfield was finally nominated and elected.

President Garfield was as s assinated in 1881 and Vice President Arthur became Pre s ident. 1834: In 1884 the Democratic nominee, - Grover Cleveland, was elected. In his address accepting the nomina t ion be pointed out the dangers in the eligibili t y of a President for reelection.

1'888: In this year Cleveland was r e nominated and defeated by the Republican candidate, Harrison, but was reelected in 1892 .

1892: Iri this year the Populist Party platform contained a plank limiting t he Pre s i­ dent t o one term.

1892: During the period following Cleveland ' s reelection, 13 amendments were introduced in Congress to limit the Presidential term in various ways.

1894: In this year William Jennings Bryan, then a Member of the House, proposed three single-term amendments and one making -a President ineligible to succeed himself.

1896: The Democratic platform of 1896, upon which Bryan ran for the Presidency, contained the following plank: "We declare it to be the unwritten law of this Republic, established by custom and usage of a hundred years, and sanctioned by the example of the greatest and wisest of those who founded and maintained our Government that no man should be eligible for a third term of the Presidential office."

1896: McKinley was elected in 189(} and reelected in 1900. Soon after his second inauguration it was suggested that McKinley be considered for another reelection in 1904; that the only objection which might be urged against him was the anti-third-term feeling, but that this would amount to nothing, with a candidate who possessed the confidence of the country to the extent that Mr. McKinley did. · ·

1901: On June 10, 1901, however, President McKinley issued the following public statement:

"I regret that the suggestion of a third term has been made. I doubt whether I am called upon to give to it notice, but there are new questions of the gravest importance before the administration and the country, and their just consideration should not be prejudiced in the public mind by even the suspicion of the thought of a third term. In view • • • of a long-settled conviction • • • I will not be a candidate for a third term."

President McKinley was assassinated in 1901 and was succeeded by Vice President Roosevelt.

1904: President Roosevelt was elected in 1904. On November 8, election day, after his election had been conceded, he made the following statement to the press:

"On the 4th of March next I shall have served 37'2 years, and these 37'2 years constitute my first term . The wise custom which limits the President to two terms regards the substance, and not the form, and under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another nomination."

1908: President Roosevelt was followed by President Taft in 1908.

1912: On February 25, 1912, when the progressive wing of the Republican Party began opposing the renomination of Taft and urged Roosevelt to become a candidate, Roosevelt wrote:

"I will accept the nomination if it is tendered to me, and I will adhere to this decision until the convention has expressed its preference."

1912: The , Democratic platform of 1912, on which Woodrow Wilson ran for the Presidency, contained a single-term plank as follows:

"We favor a single Presidential term, and to that end urge the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution making the President of the United States ineligible for reelection, and we pledge the candidate of this convention to this principle."

Mr. Wilson, however, who accepted the nomination, had written years before that "short terms which cut off the efficient as surely and as inexorably as the inefficient are quite as repugnant to republican as to monarchial rules of wisdom."

1912: On June 13, 1912, Mr. Clayton, Democrat, from the House Committee on the Judiciary, submitted a favorable report (No. 885) on House Joint Resolution 325, proposing a constitutional amendment limiting the President to a single 6-year term. No further action was taken on the resolution.

1912: During this period 21 amendments were introduced in Congress proposing a limitation on the Presidential term.

1913: On February 1, 1913, prior to the first inauguration of President Wilson, the Senate passed the joint resolution (S. J. Res. 78) by a vote of 47 to 23, known as the Works' resolution, providing for a constitutional amendment limiting the President to a single 6-year term. No action was taken on the resolution in the House.

In a letter to A. Mitchell Palmer, Demo- · crat, a Member of th~ House from Pennsylvania, written while the Works' resolution was pending in the House, President Wilson stated that he did not approve of it “and that he would abide by the judgment of his party and the people as to whether he would be a candidate for reelection in 1916." 1916: In the election of 1916 the Prohibition Party adopted a plank , recommending a single 6-year term.

1927: On February 21, Representative Fairchild, New York, Republican, offered the following constitutional amendment:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President who has previously served two terms, whether by election or by succession due to the removal, death, resignation, , or inability of the President where the term by succession shall have continued for a period of 2 years or more."

1927: On February 10, 1927, Representative Beck, Wisconsin, Republican, introduced a resolution practically the same as the Springer resolution of 1875, suggesting a constitutional amendment against a third term. 1927: On February 22, Senator La Follette introduced the corresponding resolution in the Senate. ·

No action was taken on any of these resolutions in the Sixty-ninth Congress.

1927: Several resolutions had been introduced in the Seventieth Congress, offering constitutional amendments to limit the Presidential term.

1928: The La Follette resolution was reintroduced on January 27, 1928, amended and passed by the Senate on February 10, 1928, by a vote of 56 to 26, as follows:

"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 fraught with peril to our free institutions."

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I have listened with interest to a great deal of repetitious argument on the floor of the Senate in times past. I wish to congratulate my assiduous brother from West Virginia for accumulating so many Republican phrases which were used in days past when the shoe was on the other foot.

Mr. KILGORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just one question?

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. KILGORE. Does the Senator infer from that that at such times the Republicans were · misled?

Mr. WILEY. I shall come to that point in a moment.

Mr. · President, some time ago I had occasion to ask someone in my office to look up the history of . the debate in the past with respect to this question. I found that invariably the clamor for limitation of the term of President arose when a Republican President was in office, at which time the leading Democrats of the Nation were in favor of a constitutional amendment such as the one now before the Senate. I was asked whether I wanted my office force to gather that material for me, and I said I want to call to the attention of Senators who are gracing their chairs on this occasion to the fact that the House passed the pending measure providing for the constitutional amendment by a vote of 285 to 121. I wish to say again, in order that much of what has been said here this afternoon will not be misunderstood by the occupants of the galleries, that no Senator, no matter how he votes today, thereby commits himself as to his position before his constituency. He is today only voting whether he is willing to submit the constitutional amendment to the representatives of the people in the legislatures of the Nation, or whether he does not trust them to decide the question. As I have stated on another occasion, the members of the legislatures, officers of government . like ourselves, are closer to the people than we are. They represent small districts.

Mr. President, I say that our friends have forgotten a little bit of our constitutional history when they say that the founding fathers were altogether willing to proceed with the Constitution, without doing something more. I say that' unless there had been a definite understanding that the Bill of Rights, as amendments · to the Constitution, would be adopted, the Constitution would not have become the basic law of the country. The delegates from New York State and from other States would not have voted to adopt the Constitution unless assured that the Bill of Rights would be adopted.

Mr. President, what are we proposing to do now? We are trying to settle a question which has been agitating the people since the days of the · framing of the Constitution. By presenting the socalled Tydings-Taft amendment we are taking the question out of politics, because under it the terms of the constitutional amendment shall not apply to the present President. If that amendment is adopted no one can successfully argue that the proposal has a political cast.

The basic reason for the overwhelming vote in the · House is that the Members of the House · e have had their eyes opened to recent happenings on the stage of this world. The Reichstag in Germany was not able to control Hitler. The argument has been made that if Congress takes the action now proposed the result will be the creation of a Hitler. Some individuals see the matter black and some see it white.

Mr. President, are we willing to permit the legislatures of the States to decide this matter? Are we willing to let government officials who are closer to the people than we are vote on the constitutional amendment?

The impression I have gained from much that has been said on the :floor of the Senate is that we, the Congress of the United States, were deciding whether there was to be an amendment to the Constitution. Congress could decide n · nothing of the kind. If we submit the question to the people, or to their representatives in the legislatures of the names: States, they will make the decision.

I listened witl; a great deal of pleasure to the able remarks of my friend the S . Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND I, former Governor of that State. I remember on several occasions, when with others I visited the State, with what friendship we were entertained, and I remember the part the Senator from Florida took in entertaining Us. In speaking of the limitation . of the terms of the President he called it the Washington tradition. I want to say to my Democratic friends that such limitation Downey is more than the Washington tradition. I further wish to say that we cannot shift responsibility respecting this matter by s . saying there is some politics back of it. Washington knew what he was about when he .. refused a third term. His great heir, Jefferson, knew what he was about when he did the same thing. I have quoted what Jefferson said · on the subject. He sensed what we in this day and generation sense. If we place for any great period of time authority in the hands of any one man, or, as President Roosevelt said, in the hands of a party, we · will soon regret having done so. I wish to quote President Roosevelt's identical language:

For one reason or another even a wisely led political party, given a long enough tenure of office, finally fails to express any longer the will of the people.

To paraphrase that language, if we give any one man or any group a clutch hold on the economy of the Nation-we talk about restraining trusts, and trusts are made up of men-or on the political life of the country, what happens? The will of the people is no longer expressed. Let us put it this way: Those placed in such a position of power no longer seek to preserve the liberties of the people. Every Member of the Senate remembers instances of that sort. A reading of history will bear it out. Continuance of power in the hands of an individual or a party over a considerable period of time made possible a · Hitler, a Mussolini, and all the little Fascists. That, Mr. President, is the reason · for the pro- . posed constitutional amendment. The attempt to kick it out the window by insinuating that on former occasions men have argued, as we are arguing here today, for . and against the proposal and have rejected it, seems to me to be quite unjustified, because those who argued the matter then had not lived through the First World War nor through the Second World War. Whether we should give the people, through their legislatures , the right to express themselves for or against the constitutional amendment is the issue.

Mr. President, I sincerely hope that the Senate may vote on the pending sub- . stitute amendment, and then vote on any other proposals which may be presented. I suggest the absence of a quorum unless some Senator desires to speak at this time. .

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested, and the clerk will call the roll.

The Chief Clerk called the roll, and the following Senators answered to their Aiken Hawkes Morse Baldwin Hayden Murray Ball Hickenlooper Myers Brewster Hill O'Conor Bricker Hoey O'Daniel Brooks Holland Overton Buck Ives Pepper Bushfield Jenner Revercomb Byrd Johnson, Colo. Robertson, Va. Cain Johnston · , S . C. Russell Capehart Kern · Saltonstall Capper Kilgore Smith Chavez Knowland Sp a rkman Connally Langer Stewart Cooper Lodge Taft Cordon Lucas Taylor Donnell McCarran Thomas. Okla .

McC a rthy Thye

Dworshak McClellan Tydings Eastland McFar la nd Umstead Ecton McGrath Vandenberg Ellender McKellar Watkins Ferguson McMahon Wherry Flanders Magnuson White Fulbright Martin ­ Wiley George Maybank Williams · Green Millikin Wilson Gurney Moore Young

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Eighty-four Senators have answered to their' names. A quorum is present.

The question is on agreeing to the Dworrhak amendment offered by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], as modified, to the committee amendment on page 2, beginning in line 4.

On this question 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 Kansas [Mr. REEDJ. who is absent because of illness, is paired with the Senator from New York [Mr. WAGNER].

The Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGESl, who is detained on committee business, is paired with the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. B .:' RKLEYJ. If the Senator from New Hampshire were present and voting he would vote “nay.” The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. BuTLER] is absent because of illness. If present and voting he would vote "nay." The S e nator from Nevada ' [Mr. MALONE] is necessarily absent on state business; · ss; the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. RoBERTSON) is absent because of illness; and the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. ToBEY] · is absent by leave of the Senate on official business.

Mr. LUCAS. I announce that the Senator fro.m Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] and the Senator from · New York [Mr. WAGNERl are necessarily absent.

The Senator from New MExico [ Mr. H A TCH] is detained on public business. The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEY] and the Senator from Utah tMr. THOMAS] are unavoidably detained. .. On this vote the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY] is paired with the Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. BRIDGES]. If present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky would vote "yea" and the Senator from New Hampshire would vote "nay."

If present and voting, the Senator from New Mexico [Mr. HATCH], the Senator from Wyoming O'MAHONEYJ, and the Senator from Utah [Mr. THOMAS] would vote "yea."

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

The result was announced-yeas 34, nays 50, as follows:

YEAS-34

Byrd Kilgore Overton Chavez Lucas Pepper Connally McCarran Robertson , Va. Downey McClellan Russell Fulbright McFarland Sparkman George McGrath Stewart Green _ McMahon T ay: or Hayden Magnuson Thomas. Okla . Hill May bank Tydings Hoey Murray Um stea d Holland Myers Johnston, S.C. O ' O’Conor

NAYS-50

Aiken Ellender Moore Baldwin Fergu s on · Mor s e Ball F :anders O'Daniel Brewster Gurney Revercomb Bricker Hawkes S a ltonstall Brooks Hickenlooper Smith Buck Ives Taft Bushfield Jenner Thye Cain Johnson, Colo . Vandenberg Capehart Kern Watkins Capper Know land Wherry Cooper Langer White Cordon Lodge Wiley Donnell McCarthy Wi!liams

McKellar Wilwn

Eastland Martin Young Ecton Millikin

NOT VOTING-11

Barld ey Malone Thomas, Utah Bridges O'Mahoney Tobey Butler Reed Wagner Hatch Robertson, Wyo.

So Mr. MAGNUSoN's amendment to the committee amendment was rejected.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question now recurs on agreeing to the committee amendment on page 1, begining in line 10.

Mr. TAFT. , Mr. President, I offer the amendment whieh I send to the desk as a substitute for the second committee amendment, and asl2that it be stated.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment offered by the Senator from Ohio will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. In lieu of the language proposed to be inserted by the committee amendment on page 2, begin- ning 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, and no pers on who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than 2 years of a term to which some other person was elected P res ident , shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person · on holding the o,ffice 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 term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Mr. TAFT. Mr. President, yesterday when we had a discussion on this general subject there were various objections to the committee amendment, and it seemed to me that we could reach an agreement on an amendment. I drafted this amendment yesterday and talked [Mr. with the distinguished Senator from New Mexico [Mr. HATCH], who approved the general theory of it. I have talked with other Senators on the other side of the aisle. It seems to me that my amendment represents a perfectly fair compromise of the differences of opinion which have developed during the debate. It provides, generally speaking, that a man who succeeds to the office of President from the Vice Presidency-and that is the intricate problem which faces usshall have only one more term if he serves more than 2 years. In other words, if he has a complete Congress in his first term, he will then be eligible for one election to a 4-year term, and will be permitted to serve for at least 6 years. No man can be held to less than 6 years. On the other hand. if he has not a complete Congress, if he has held office less than 2 years, he may be reelected twice and may serve a total of 10 years minus 1 day.

The committee amendment, in effect, provides that a man might be limited to 5 years or might serve as long as 9 years. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] provides, in effect, that he should have · at least 8 years and might have as much as 12 years, if the President died before ~e took office and he succeeded to the Presidency. .

I think this is a reasonable and - sensible compromise. Many persons believe there should be one . 6-year Presidential term. Therefore if by any chance the term is more than 6 years under any conceivable circumstances, we are not taking a radical step. On the other hand, I think a term of 12 years is too long. I think it is too much for a man's health, too much for the country, and involves the acquiring of too much power.

I should like to say, further, in order to make clear that this amendment is not in any way proposed as a partisan measure, that I have expressly excepted President Truman.

But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress.

Any man who runs for the office of Vice President after this time will know that if the President dies within the first two years the Vice President can be elected President only" once.

When President Truman was elected Vice President there was no limitation; and I think it is rather harsh to impose retroactively a limitation.

I hope very much that the Article as thus amended may meet with the approval of the committee and of those on the other side of the aisle who are interested in this particular question.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the substitute amendment submitted by the Senator from Ohio.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I shall not · speak on this amendment, but I shall speak on the joint resolution itself. I assume that whatever I say will not change any votes, but I desire to make my position clear and definite on what seems to me to be a very fundamental issue now confronting the Senate.

No matter how any Member of the Senate may vote upon the issue now pending· before it, truthful men know that the breaking of the two-term precedent by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 and the further shattering of the precedent by his reelection in 1944 are the basic reasons for seeking this constitutional amendment. Partisan inspiration has decreed that that shall not happen again.

It is most unfortunate that such a great issue has to be meshed into the wheels of partisan politics. The swift and speedy manner in which this measure passed the House of Representatives, with every Republican voting for it, is a tragic lesson in governmental decay, rather than progress, in the only true representative democracy in all the world.

What Senator supporting this resolution will say that in his deliberations he has approached the issue · as a practical . al problem of government? How many Senators have their judgment warped by partisan prejudice, as we seek to place definite limitations upon the sovereign - rights of the people? Mr. President, hear me! Will Senators in this revolutionary step permit their dislikes of the moment to be woven into eternal principles that may be fateful to the Nation in some great future emergency?

Mr. President, many constitutional amendments h:we been proposed since our inception as a Nation. Whether introduced by a Democrat or a Republican, the fine hand of partisan politics was there. The only group which, when ' considering this question, was not prejudiced by personalities, was the founding fathers. It is with emphasis that I assert that the founding fathers had an advantage no Senator has today in determining the proper course of presidential tenure. They had no knowledge of prospective candidates, their views upon domestic or international issues, their eharacter, or their political philosophy. The length of Presidential tenure, as found in the Constitution, was not decided upon the basis of the record of any man or political party. There was no hate, rancor, bitterness, or prejudice dealing with Presidential personalities in their long and mature deliberations.

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

Mr. LUCAS. I do not wish to yield until I conclude, but I shall yield at this time.

Mr. BALDWIN. I wish to ask one question. I understand that the Senator from Illinois charges partisan politics in connection with this proposed constitutional amendment. Why was it that George Washington himself stated to all the American people that he felt he should retire at the end of his second term? Was there partisan politics in that?

Mr. LUCAS. I shall answer the Senator as I proceed with my speech. In it I quote George Washington. The Senator admitted the other day, in the course of the debate, that partisan politics was involved in this matter; and · he praised the very fact that there was partisan politics in it, as I recall.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President. I submit that the Senator has not answered my question.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President. I do not yield further. After I finish my speech I shall be glad to debate this point with the Senator all afternoon.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Illinois declines to yield.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I boldly assert that of all the men who have considered Presidential tenure, only the founding fathers were fair and impartial. Yet here in a moment of emotionalism, a moment of power, a moment of prejudice, resulting from the 1946 Republican victory, we are called upon to enact for the first time a dangerous and far-reaching piece of legislation which strikes at the very heart of representative democracy. We are asked to repudiate the findings of the founding fathers. We are about to say they were wrong. We are about to say they committed a grievous error in not limiting the rights of the sovereign people. We propose to whittle away a sacred right guaranteed by the very document we now seek to amend, a document that was described by the Englishman Gladstone as the greatest of its kind that was ever struck off at a given time by the pen and brain of man.

Mr. Pres'lden · ~. it must be remembered that George Washington, the father and savior of this country, was Chairman of the Constitutional Convention. He heard all the arguments, pro and con. Not once did he protest against the reeligibility question. He was in complete agreement with the "no limitation" clause on tenure. In all our history no one has · expressed himself so clearly upon this question as did George Washington, when he said:

Under the extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the services of any man, who, on some great emergency, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the public.

There lies the meat of the coconut in respect to all of these arguments. Washington, the man of vision, courage, and capacity, thinking only in the terms of his country, foresaw the hour when a great emergency might arise, when the people would want to continue their Chief Executive in office for a third term. That hour did arrive in November 1940. and the people followed the advice of George Washington.

Mr. President, Washington did not fear dictatorship. The Colonies a few years before had been ruled by a king. Stupid despots and brutal kings were scattered around the earth. He and his contemporaries were familiar with the disadvantages and dangers of living under a powerful long-time executive. The Constitution was written in the midst • of these vivid realities. These far-seeing men were anxious to guard against a monarchical form of tenure. A century and a half of progress and happiness under no constitutional strictures of tenure should be the complete and final answer to those seeking this constitutionallimitation.

There has never been a dictatorship in this country. There never will be, as long as we . have free elections. I respectfully submit that to deny the peopie of the Nation a free choice in the election of a President of the United States for a third or fourth term is a limitation on the people's sovereignty which in a great emergency might lead to a dictatorship. I seriously submit that in an hour of pressing danger a true, experienced, and tried Executive could well prevail over respect for the Constitution. Obviously, if such should happen, the Republic would be gone. Yet by this very constitutional amendment, we place temptation in the governmental highway of the future.

Mr. President, this Government belongs to the people. If they want to continue a Chief Executive in his office, who has a better right to do so? Who are we to say that the wisdom of the men of tomorrow will be inferior to the wisdom we possess? What right have we to say that the citizens of 50 years from now would not be capable of giving weight to the value of tested leadership in time of war or other international or domestic emergency? What omnipotent power do we possess which gives us the right to deny the citizens of tomorrow freedom of choice and freedom of action? I have always understood that a true and a progressive democracy overlooked no opportunity tj,o expand the rights of the people. Certainly this amendment violates that fundamental concept. Every constitutional amendment except one-the prohibition amendment-was for the benefit of the people, and that amendment was ultimately repealed.

Mr. President, we know that for 150 years we have survived successfully under the process of democratic government. We know through that experience that the longer a man continues in elec- , tive office in this country the less chance he · has of being elected. Franklin D. Roosevelt's majorities progressively declined, rather than increased, following his second election, even though the third came at a time of great international emergency, and the fourth in the midst of a war. The desire among the American people for change is strong. On the question of Presidential tenure th . e people can and ought to be trusted to decide when to make an exception. The fact that no man in a democracy is indispensable does not validate a restriction of the people's right to express their preference. The guarding of that right is the surest guarantee of the preservation of democracy.

Mr. President, I ask the attention of the present occupant of the chair to what I am about to say. . y. In doing · some research work upon . Presidential tenure I came across an article written by the present distinguished occupant of the chair, the President pro tempore, prepared for Liberty magazine for October 1939. The ideas expressed in the article so coincide with mine that I cannot help quoting it for the benefit of the RECORD and the Senate.

I wish to say to the distinguished Senator from Michigan that I sometimes wonder how frequently I find myself agreeing with him on many important questions which have arisen in the Senate from time to time.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair may say to the Senator that the 11aid: Chair is always enlightened by the Senator from Illinois, even when he is speaking on his own, and not quoting the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LUCAS. I thank the Senator. I shall now quote briefly from what the Senator from Michigan said in the article to which I have referred. At the time this article was written many of his friends were certain he would be the candidate for the Republican nomination for President, · which later proved to be an accurate bit of speculation.

Notwithstanding the Senator's high position in the Republican Party in 1939, he approached the third-term issue as a practical problem of government, with a complete . understanding of our history and traditions. Had his article been written for political reasons at that particular time, he could have cried “dictatorship” and "the fall of the Republic," that old, familiar Republican theme song I have heard so often. But he was _ too big a man to deal with phony issues, and that is why he stands where he is today; and I say that in all seriousness. At this late hour I congratulate the Senator upon carrying this discussion upon such a high plane. There is truth, logic, eloquence, and statesmanship in the article, and I wish to read a few excerpts from it. The Senator from Michigan said:

I want to say for myself that I doubt the wisdom of attempting to change the tenure or to limit ~t by constitutional amendment. I think these decisions should be left to the patriotic and vigilant American conscience. This in no sense can undermine the good faith of my own one-term proposal, because, as I have previously said, no new constitutional restraints could possibly reach the Constitution by 1940 anyway.

Who shall say that a tradition and a habit against a prolonged Presidency on the one hand, or freedom of action in behalf of a shorter prepledged Presidency on the other hand, is not better and safer than a constitutional stricture which could not be changed to fit one emergency or the other? The one is elastic under pressure of . necessity; the other is a self-made barriererected by the people against themselveswhich is as insurmountable as, in some crises, it might be fatal.

In the presence of 1940, the people are free to elect Mr. Roosevelt for a third term if they wish. They are equally free to choose a prepledged one-term successor to him-or an unpledged two-term successor-if they wish. And since this is their Government--

! am still quoting from the distinguished Senator from Michigan, who now presides over the SenateAnd since this is their Government, it is illogical to tie their freedom of action.

That is what I have been preaching all during this debate, that it is illogical to tie the freedom of choice and the freedom of action of the American people who have been trusted with our Government for 150 years, and have done a pretty good job of it. ·

The very fact that proposed constitutional strictures of one sort and another have always excited violent differences of opinion, and have always failed to jell, ls the best possible proof that there never could be permanent assurance that any one particular constitutional stricture would fit the changing vicissitudes of time . and popular opinion.

The Senator from Michigan further Well, there you are. We have had great varieties of Presidential tenure, thanks to constitutional freedom in respect to it. I think it is probably wisest that both the freedom and the variety should continue. No one can conclusively say precisely how . long any one citizen should claim the White House for his home.

That is correct. I quote further from the Senator from Michigan:

When Lincoln was asked how long a man's legs ought to be, he replied, "Long enough to reach the ground." That's the safest sort of answer to the question, how long the Presidential tenure ought to be. It ought to be long enough-or short enough-to fit the necessities of the contemporary moment.

Mr. President, I say with the utmost sincerity that this is the greatest thesis upon this question I have been able to find or read in my study, in the Congressional Library or anYwhere else.

Further, the able Senator from Michigan said:

We may safely leave the decision to the wisdom of the American people. That has been spectacularly true for 150 years. It still will be true in 1940.

In order that I may not do the Senator from Michigan any injustice whatever, I ask unanimous consent that at this point in my remarks the entire article be printed in the RECORD, and I hope that regardless of how the vote goes, every Member of the Senate will find time, in the busy days ahead, to read the article which the able Senator from Michigan wrote for Liberty magazine in 1939.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the order is made.

The article i~ as follows: ·

MR. ROOSEVELT AND THE THIRD-TERM