March 12, 1947 (4)

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

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, the pending question is whether or not the Senate by a two-thirds vote shall agree to submit to the people of the United States for ratification, through their legislatures, the following proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the President, or acted as President, for more than 2 years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting . as President during the remainder of such term.

Mr. President, that is the language proposed by the distinguished senior Senator from · Ohio [Mr. TAFTJ . and adopted by the Senate this afternoon. In express language it excepts from the operation of the proposal the present occupant of the White House, and it would also except the President of the United States at the time the amendment should become operative, should it be properly ratified by the legislatures of threefourths of the States.

Mr. President, I shall not, directly or indirectly, question or attack the motives of those who are either the sponsors or the supporters of the proposed amendment. But I cannot refrain from saying that in my opinion the effect of it, the way it will be construed by the people of our country and of the world, is that it is aimed directly at the Presidency and the record of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Why do I say that, Mr. President? The intended amendment to the Federal Constitution is of course a constitutional limitation upon the right and present power of the people of this country, in free elections, to elect one to be the highest magistrate in the land. I say that not only because the proposal emanates from a party other than the party of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. I dare say its principal supporters are in that party, as has been manifest on the floor. I say that, Mr. President, because in the 158 years of the duration of this Government under the Constitution of the United States with the present unlimited power of the people to elect a qualified man to the office of President as many times as they may -see fit to elect him, no Congress has ever proposed to the country an amendment to the Constitution to deprive the people of that power, and no man has ever thrice, much less four times, been elected to the highest office within the gift of a sovereign people, save Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And, as Patrick Henry said, Mr. President: We have no light to guide our footsteps in the future except the lamp of the past.

Therefore those who are the sponsors and the supporters of the proposed amendment to the Constitution must find in the record of Franklin D. Roosevelt something which in their opinion justifies this radical deprivation of free franchise from the people of the United States to elect their own President.

Therefore I say, Mr. President, it seems to me it was intended to and it does submit to the Congress and to the country a referendum on the question of whether the people of the United States. under the circumstances then prevailing, were right in the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to a third and to a fourth term as President of the United States.

Mr. President, what is proposed to be done by this resolution is in a time of relative calm and quietude to deprive the people of the power to choose their President in a moment of crisis. Let it be remembered that this Senate, this country, this world, are not the same Senate, the same country. the same world as they were in November 1940, nor the same as in November 1944. All we have to do, Mr. President, is to imagine the rivers of blood that have flowed since November 1940 and 1944 to give this country its present calm and quietude, to give democracy on earth the stability and the assurance which it enjoys today.

Mr. President, it is not easy for us as we sit here now in the calm which has been won by the blood and maimed bodies of so many who have given them ­ selves for their country, to remember the crisis which faced the world in 1940, in November, when the people of the United States elected Franklin D. Roosevelt for the first time in their history to a third term. It is not always remembered how decisive was the judgment of the · people in November 1940, and November 1944.

The able Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] placed figures in the RECORD in his distinguished remarks only a few days ago, and pointed out that in 1940 27,243,466 Americans voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt to continue in office for a third term. This constitutional amendment, if it had become a part of the Constitution prior to that date, would have thwarted the will of an overwhelming majority of the people of the United States. Twenty-two million three hundred and four thousand seven hundred and fifty-five Americans voted for Wendell Willkie. So a majority of approximately 5,000,000 votes were cast for Franklin D. Roosevelt for a third term over as worthy an opponent as ever sought the suffrage of the people of this country for their highest office.

Mr. Roosevelt received 449 electoral votes, while Mr. Willkie received only 82 electoral votes. Does that indicate, Mr. President, whether the judgment of the people of this country at that time, in the face of the crisis then confronting them, was decisive?

Mr. Roosevelt carried 38 out of the 48 States.

In 1944, the Senator from Alabama continued, the question was not a third term, but a fourth term for Mr. Roosevelt. He received 25,603,152 votes and Mr. Dewey received 22,006,616 votes. In other words, Mr. Roosevelt received approximately 3,600,000 more votes than Mr. Dewey did when the question was whether Mr. Roosevelt should be elected for a fourth term. Mr. Roosevelt then received 432 electoral votes. Mr. Dewey received only 99 electoral votes. Mr. Roosevelt carried 36 States, or threefourths of · all the States of the Union when he was running for election for a fourth term. And incidentally, Mr. President, in both those elections President Franklin D. Roosevelt carried a sufficient number of States in the country to justify the ratification of a constitutional amendment-three-fourths of all the States. There was a referendum submitted to the people, not to the legis- • latures, as the present amendment contemplates. I suppose I am correct, that the previous action of the Senate that the ratification shall be by legislatures is contained in the amendment now before the , Senate.

That was a referendum, Mr. President, by the people whose sons would have to make the sacrifice necessary to secure and to protect America. In my opinion, that was a democratic referendum, and the decision was authoritative beyond any possible cavil or question.

Now, Mr. President, let it be remembered that when the people of the United States cast the vote for Franklin D. Roosevelt in November of 1940 to be for the first time the breaker of the antithird-term precedent, the clouds of war that would engulf America as well as Europe were already dangerously looming on the American horizon. Let it be remembered that as early as Dunkerque, in June of 1940, the President of the United States, while persistently working and earnestly praying for peace, realized that if America was to remain secure against totalitarian aggression America had to give assistance to the victims of Hitler's cruel assaults on the other side of the Atlantic.

If S ena tors will pardon a personal re ference, I shall never forget the day when I went to see President Roosevelt about some matter, and as I sat down in the chair beside h i m he pulled open h i s desk d rawe r and took out several shee t s of paper, which he handed to me. He said, "I thought you would be interested in that." I glanced at it, and it seemed to be a catalog of a great quantity of machine guns, a considerable amount of shells, of light arms, equipment, and weapons of war. As I looked upon it the President said, "I have just sent those to England. I pray they get there before it is too late." That was right after Dunkerque in 1940. He had, without authority of law, without even the technical right to make a disposition of American property, in order to save America and possibly to save American blood, sent a million, I believe, of light arms and a large quantity of ammunition . to Great Britain at a time when Britain did not have 10,000 armed men on the British Isles to defend them against aggression if Hitler's assault had · struck that tight little island. Yes, the American people knew that, Mr. President.

It was along about that · time, and about 3 weeks before the Democratic convention in 1940, that I recall the President saying, "I want to . go home. - I want to go home." In that man's face there was not only physical and mental fatigue, but there was the anguish of a tremendous decision to be made in his own great head and heart. He was wrestling with the traditional decision of Washington, Jefferson, and other Americans. He wondered whether the emergency justified his asking the American people to permit him to be the instrument to break that almost sacred political tradition. I heard him say over the telephone to the Democratic convention in 1940, when the platform subcommittee had written into a resolution language which would prevent him from effectually defending America, or make him break his word if he did it, "I will not accept the nomination on those conditions. It would make me violate my obligation to the American people or forfeit my duty to defend and protect America."

The understanding hearts of the people of the country and the glowing pages of history will attest that no man struggled so much with that decision as did Franklin D. Roosevelt. He concluded, as did his party, which had never nominated anyone for a third term, and which had a record of fidelity to the principles of democracy which I dare say is not excelled by the record of any other political party in the country, that the emergency of the then circumstances demanded, for the sake of the safety and security of America, the continuation in the Presidency of the experience which no other living man besides Franklin D. Roosevelt possessed. The obligation of America to defend democracy on earth was greater than the peculiar tradition against a third term which may have been justified upon distinguishable facts, and which may have been fathered even by the Father of our Country.

Franklin D. Roosevelt dared to risk the denunciation of his fellow countrymen and history by failing in what his enemies would call a grasp · for power, in order that he might give the best he had-and it was later his life-in the defense of America,

We do not always recall that it was on September 3, 1940, after President Roosevelt had been nominated by the Democratic convention in Chicago, that the destroyer deal, the transfer of 50 American destroyers to hard-pressed Britain, was consummated in exchange for a 99-year lease on strategic bases in the Western Atlantic. It is easily forgotten that the transfer of those 50 destroyers, courageously undertaken, as was the shipment of the 1,000,000 rifles and machine guns after Dunkerque, may have been the salvation of Britain, sorely pressed as she then was. It is easy to forget the battle of Britain as we sit here in the calm of the Senate, in the security of a country which has its security because so many have died that we might possess it. As we sit here this evening we do not remember what the British people were saying to us. We do not remember that one of the greatest war leaders of all times, . Winston Churchill, was telling Franklin D. Roosevelt how long the British could stand up and preserve the bastion of our own later defense if such help as that were not given them . by the Government of the United States.

We do not always remember that had we not had a courageous President at that time, who dared to risk impeachment, Britain might not have survived. President Roosevelt had no congressional authority either to transfer light arms to Britain after Dunkerque or the 50 destroyers; nor had he any congressional authority to start the wheels of our factories moving in America in order that a trickle, at least, of supplies might start toward Britain in the moment of her severest trial. The destroyers were transferred on September 3, 1940.

I wonder how many of us remember when the Selective Service Act was passed. That was September 16, 1940, on the eve of the November election. · That was when , political advisers, thinking less about America than about the election, were telling Franklin D. Roosevelt that it was political suicide to put a selectice-service law into effect in the very shadow of the November election, when he was seeking an unprecedented third term. But again Franklin D. Roosevelt put America ahead of politics and ran the risk that Americans would not patriotically respond to the appeal of his courageous leadership. They responded, without any question of doubt.

Mr. President, that was all before the November election in 1940. Perhaps we have forgotten that the First War Powers Act was passed on December 18, 1940 1 before Roosevelt began to serve his third term, but after his election.

What happened after the election of President Roosevelt in November 1940? If I mention nothing else, Franklin D. Roosevelt was responsible in his third term for an event of transcendent importance. He was respons ib le for the passage of the lend-lease law. It was his genius which conceived the possibility of American all-out economic aid to the hard-pressed Allies. That event alone would entitle him to one of the greatest tributes in all history.

Why do I say that? The L end -Lease Act passed by the Congress became effective on March 11, 1941. I think I can call two witnesses whose testimony is ' worthy of consideration. One of them is Winston Churchill, who said that lend-lease saved Britain. How much is Britain worth? How much · was it worth to the Allied cause and to democracy and decency on earth that the British people be spared the noose of the conqueror around their necks and the cruel heel of the tyrant upon their bodies?

The other witness is Joseph Stalin, who said that lend-lease saved Russia. How many Americans did it save? How many sons of Senators came back alive from the war who would not otherwise have come back at all, or might have come back maimed had they returned, were it not for the millions of Russian men and women in · uniform who laid down their lives to crush the common enemy, Adolf Hitler? The Soviet Ambassador in Washington told me that there were 7,000,000.

Does anyone think that a new man coming into the White House as a result of the November election of 1940 could have achieved the enactment by Congress, · with the support of the country, of · lend-lease legislation in March 1941? Perhaps there are some who forget the bitterness of debate in the forum of public opinion in America and in the Congress before we · were ever able to give our assent to that legislation. It is not so easy for some of us to forget it. If I may be permitted to say .so, I had the honor to be hanged in effigy on an oak tree in front of the United States Capitol by a group of ladies who called themselves patriots, and purported to act with sincerity. I shall not question . either their patriotism or their sincerity. The reason was that I, from a conscientious conviction that it was essential to the salvation of America and democracy on earth, had dared to offer the first lendlease resolution that was offered in the Congress, in May 1940, and an · amended resolution a few days later, and had done what I could in the Congress and in the country to persuade public opinion and the Congress to adopt that measure, which the President had courageously conceived and recommended.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? · · Mr. PEPPER. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LUCAS. Would the Senator care to express his opinion as to what an inexperienced man might have done in connection with the spending of more than $2,000 , 000 , 000 on the a _ atomic bomb? I wonder what a new man might have done in that situation.

Mr. PEPPER. I thank the Senator for his question. In the dangerous and difficult path which President Roosevelt, for America, had to tread, what would any inexperienced man have done? Just as the President had the courage to conceive and to recommend lend-lease, regarded, I think, by nearly everyone as one of the most magnificent creations of statesmanship in all history, in the boldness of its concept and in the efficacy of lts accomplishment; just as he had the courage and the genius to initiate and to pr es s through to enactment the LendLease Act, as the able Senator from Illinois has pointed out, he exhibited the same genius and the same courage in the initiation of research concerning the atomic bomb. From President Roosevelt came the original impulse for this inquiry, supported with the almost unlimited financial aid of the Government of the United States.

Then again , Mr. President, he made himself liable to the severest denunciation by his critics, had that en t erprise failed, · for daring to spend over $2,000,- 000 , 000 upon what his political opponents might later have called a quaint Roosevelt fantasy or dream.

Yes, Mr. President; lend-lease will stand as a testimonial for all time to Franklin D. Roosevelt. I venture to say, without fear of successful contradiction, that no other man elected in November 1940 to the Presidency, had he conceived or initiated such a proposal, would have been _ able to have it adopted, at least as speedily as did President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

As I have said, in my opinion, lendlease made the difference between defeat and victory for the Allied cause. It made the difference as to whether the British people should be masters of their own destiny or whether Hitler and his cruel minions would lash their scorpions upon the backs of a once proud and free people. It made the difference as to whether or . not the nations of Europe today · would have at · least their peculiar measure of freedom and sovereignty, or would be under the yoke of Hitler and his barbaric crew.

So I say, Mr. President, that if President Roosevelt had done nothing more than to initiate, recommend, and press to enactment lend-lease, he would deserve the eulogy and gratitude of the people of the United States and the world as long as we love liberty and hate tyranny on earth.

Let it also be remembered that the selective-service law which was enacted in September 1940, had to be extended if the American Army were not to melt away. Franklin D. Roosevelt did not know that Pearl Harbor lay just over the horizon. In 1941 he recommended the extension of selective service for another 18 months, I believe. . ve. What was the margin, Mr. President, by which that extension was passed in the Congress? There was a margin of one vote in the House of Representatives. Had the American Army melted away, as I recall the figures, its dissolution would have meant that three-fourths of the officers and two- thirds of the enlisted men in our then armed forces would have been disbanded and sent home, in the very shadow of Pearl Harbor.

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

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. At the time when this program was voted on and there was a margin of one vote in favor of it in the House of Representatives, what party was in substantial control in the House?

Mr. PEPPER. The Democratic fl;l.rty. Since the Senator . has suggested 'that comparison, would he like to know the votes on all those critical measures cast by Members of the Republican Party, his party, and the Democratic Party? Would he like to have the country · remember how the majority of his party voted on lend-lease? Would he like to have the country remember how a majority of his party voted on selective service? · Would he like the country to remember how a majority of his party voted on the amendment of the Neutrality Act; on the fortification of Guam; on the building of more airplanes; on the addition of ships to the American Navy? I dare say that if the Senator would refresh his memory upon · that record he would not make it a campaign document for the Republican Party in the next election. . Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. I am always interested in reviewing the promises of the leader of the Senator's partY that American boys would never be sent to fight in a foreign war, and the reliance which the American people placed upon those assurances and promises in the hectic days which meant so much to the destiny of America. '

Mr. PEPPER. The Senator is also apparently forgetting the Democratic platform which was the basis of the · supposed promise of President Roosevelt to his party and to the American people. It stated that the Army and the Navy would not be sent ou.t of the United States, except in case of attack. In the acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination, in a radio message to the country at large as well as to the convention, President Roosevelt made that eminently clear to his party and to the American people. Does the Senator deny that we were attacked?

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Exhaustive examination of verbatim reports of the Boston speech of President Roosevelt fails to reveal that the words "in case of attack" were included in the original draft of the speech at the time it was made.

Mr. PEPPER. I happened to be a member of the resolutions committee of the Democratic convention which wrote that . platform. other Senators who participated in the convention will recall the language contained in the platform. We recall that at noon of the day the platform was adopted by the resolutions committee the President told representatives of the platform committee that he would not accept the nomination unless those qualifying words "except in case of attack," or something similar to them, were included. I happened to be on the other end of the telephone, along with some others, and heard · him say that. That was when he said, "I would have to break my promise or forfeit my duty to the American people." Even then he was putting America ahead of No, Mr. President; I should not suppose that our friends on the other side would want to rehash the issue of how they voted in those trying days, as to whether they helped Franklin D. Roosevelt or not. I am speaking of the majority and not all the members of the Republican Party; nor did all the members of the Democratic Party go along. But in every case, on every critical issue, such as selective service, lend-lease, the amendment of the Neutrality Act, and every other crucial vote leading up to Pearl Harbor, Mr. President, when Franklin Roosevelt was pleading and praying for the American Congress and the country to help him save America, a majority of the Republican Party held down the hand of President Roosevelt instead of holding it UP-and that is history, Mr. President.

We often . talk about - the Soviet Union here, in this country or in Congress. I also remember that when the vote was had in the Senate on whether Russia should be permitted to be the beneficiary of lend-lease, nearly every Republican Senator on this floor voted "nay."

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

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. BROOKS. Did I correctly understand the Senator from Florida to say that a majority of the Republicans voted · against lend-lease?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. And did I correctly understand the Senator from Florida to say that a majority of the Republicans--

Mr. PEPPER. I referred to a majority of the Republicans in the Senate.

Mr. BROOKS. I was here then, sir.

Mr. PEPPER. Yes.

Mr. · BROOKS. The Senator . from Florida said that a majority of the Republicans objected to having Russia receive lend-lease; did he not?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes; I said that practically all the Republicans voted for the amendment which was offered, I believe, by the Senator from North Carolina-at least a majority of the Republicans, and I think there were only a very few of them who did not vote for that amendment to deny lend-lease to Russia. The record will speak for itself; ·

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. President, that is where I came in. I came to the Senate about the time when the lend-lease arguments started. I objected to lend-lease. I objected to having Russia receive lendlease aid. And now that we have spent $341,000,000,000 and now that we have glorified Russia-and I am one who objected to having Russia receive it--

Mr. PEPPER. I thought so.

Mr. BROOKS. Now we have got to fight Russia. There is nothing else before us at this hour than the appropriation of $400,000,000 to stop Russia in Greece or in Turkey. If the Republicans had prevailed then and had let the Germans eat up Russia, we would not be in the predicament we are in now. What the Senator from Florida has claimed to be true, I admit to be true so · far as I am concerned, for I told the country then that they were lying to the American people. It was not lend-lease. It was giving away, and nothing has come back.

Now we start all over again, not in a big way, but in a little way. When the President of the United States spoke today about giving one-tenth of 1 percent of $340,000,000,000, I wonder whether he was talking about the $340,00Q,OOO,OOO we spent before now or whether it is the $340,000,000,000 we are going to spend from now on to stop only one philosophy-the Russian communism about which the Senator who has the floor has spoken so eloquently.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, does the Senator from Illinois say that the Senator from Florida has spoken eloquently about communism?

Mr. BROOKS. The Senator from Florida has decried every protest against Russia that has been offered on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. PEPPER. I am glad the Senator has seen fit in the interest of accuracy to change his remarks.

Mr. BROOKS. Whether in the interest of accuracy I have changed my remarks or not, I have answered the Senator's question.

Mr. PEPPER. If the Senator from Illinois means to suggest or to infer that the Senator from Florida has ever said anything in commendation of communism, the Senator from Illinois is either grossly misinformed · or intentionally in error.

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

Mr. PEPPER. Gladly.

Mr. BROOKS. Will the Senator from Florida, for the benefit of the Senate and the country, distinguish between Russia and communism?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes; I . shall gladly . do so. It was Russia that , sav.ed more than a million American lives by killing Germans. '"That is the Russia I am talking about. It is the Russia that I do not want to go to war with America, that I am talking about when I discuss American foreign policy.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. President, will the Senator Yield?

. Mr. PEPPER. Gladly.

Mr. BROOKS. It was Americans who saved more - than 10,000,000 Russian lives by going to their defense. It was not Russia that saved American lives, but it was Americans who saved Russian lives when people glorified Russia and told us the Russians were ready to accept freedom of religion, and called Russia a democracy.

Now I am wondering whether we are defending a democracy in Greece or whether we are reestablishing in Greece a king, another form of autocracy. I should like to have the Senator address himself to that point.

Mr. PEPPER. Yes; in due course I shall be very glad to advert to that.

But let me go back to the point with respect to which the Senator from Illinois said, "That is where I came in." Where he came in was to help me affirm a statement I had made as to where the majority of his party had been in regard to lend-lease and extending lend-lease aid to Russia; when Russia was attacked by Hitler. More eloquently than anything I · could have said, the Senator from Illinois has revealed what then was the attitude of his party and what still is the attitude of many members of his party.

Mr. BROOKS. · Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. BROOKS. I have never undertaken to speak for my party ~ I speak only for myself, as I do tonight. The · main speech I then made in the Senate was against · lend-lease, and I said then we were lying to the · American people and it was leading us into war. ,. And it I am saying now that what the President requested today is not one-tenth of 1 percent of what we spent yesterday, but it is one-tenth of 1 percent of what we will spend tomorrow. God grant that some day we shall have someone in · America, in the Presidency, · who will stand up and tell the American people the truth, and will say to them, "This is the program I am leading . YOU into, and this is the thing you are going to face," and then let the American people decide whether they want to take it or not.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, the views . of the Senator from Illinois are · not being expressed for the first time, of course; for on the subject of lend-lease and the subject of aid to the Allies and the subject of helping Russia and possibly-although I do not recall-the attitude of the Senator in regard to the transfer of the 50 destroyers, and other matters of that sort, the Senator’s attitude is no doubt well known to the public, as is the attitude of the Chicago Tribune, with which the Senator -from Illinois has on occasion been found in accord. [Laughter , ] .

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Pr.esident, will the Senator yield? . · ·

Ml'. PEPPER. I yield.

. Mr. BROOKS .' I objected to the transfer of the destroyers · because I said it was an act of war. I objected to every step we took which led in · the direction of war. Now that it is over and now that . we have spent, , according to , th · e President of the United States, $341,000,- , 000,000 of America's wealth, and · now that we have sent 350,000 . of America’s y _ youth to their . deaths, and now that we have a . million wounded men,' _ and now that we · have a $269,000,000,000 debt, that is where I came in.

Now we are starting it all over again, except we are not sending 50 destroyers, but we are sending what we term today to be military personneL . That means army; it means tanks; it means war. Why not say it and let us decide whether we want to take it or not? ·

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I have no doubt that the Senator from Illinois would be ready to go to war with Russia. He did not . seem, however, so anxious that we should fight against Hitler, back there in the days when ' Hitler was threatening our country and our kind of a world. So, in order that the record may be correct, let me inquire whether the Senator from Illinois voted on the question of selective service, in 1940?

Mr. BROOKS. I was not here at that moment.

Mr. PEPPER. Was the Senator from Illinois a Member of the Senate at that time? -

Mr. BROOKS. I came in November. · Mr. PEPPER. In November of 1940?

Mr. BROOKS . . Yes.

Mr. PEPPER. Did ' the Senator from Illinois vote for the extension of selective service in 1941?

Mr. BROOKS. - I think - I did, sir, at that time. ·

Mr. - PEPPER. Is the Senator confident?

· Mr. BROOKS. lam not sure.

Mr. PEPPER. I see. - But the Senator from Illinois does remember that he voted against lend lease, and he still believes it was · a · mistake; is that - correct?

Mr. BROOKS. - I say to the Senator from Florida that--

Mr. PEPPER. I just want to get the record straight.

Mr. BROOKS. The Senator from Florida will get the record straight from me, Mr. President. ·

Mr. PEPPER. I ask the Senator whether what I have · ve said is correct.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. President, it is always a mistake to lie to the · American people or to camouflage what one is trying to do to the American · people. ·

Mr. PEPPER. · That is why _ I am trying ta get the record straight now.

Mr. BROOKS. All right; get it straight. ·

Mr. PEPPER. I ask whether the able Senator from Illinois voted against lendlease.

Mr. BROOKS. I did; I spoke against it, and I voted against it.

Mr. PEPPER. Did the Senator vote for the amendment to · deny lend-lease to Russia? I take it he did.

Mr~BROOKS. I do . not think that the question of denying · lend-lease to Russia was ever before the Senate.

Mr. PEPPER. Oh, yes. .

Mr. BROOKS. Is the ·' Senator sure?

Mr. PEPPER. Yes, and I would wager the Senator voted "aye" on the Reynolds amendment to deny Russia lend-lease. Mr. BROOKS. Will the Senator send some · of . his clerks, of whom · he has so many, to find the page of the Recorp where that is reco.rded?

Mr. PEPP=R. · I would not dare to compete ' with the chairman of the Committee on Rules in the number of clerks I have at my command. _

Mr. BROOKS. · But the Senator still has · many clerks as he had iri the past, and I should like tg know the page of the RECORD.

Mr. PEPPER. I shall be very glad to ~et it, if I can, this evening, but I dare

Mr. BROOKS. Will the - Senator yield?

Mr: PEPPER. If the Senator will allow me to finish-! dare say that if the Senator did vote the other way, it was only an oversight, in view . of what he said here this evening. So that makes that clear.

Mr. BROOKS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. BROOKS. Notwithstanding how I voted on lend-lease, I say today now that we have stopped Hitler from taking over Europe, and Japan from taking over China and Asia, that there are as many concentration camps in the world tonight as there were when the Senator voted for all these things he is glad he voted for, and there is as much hate and there is as much oppression and there are as many persons In prison in the world as . there were before we started. There must have been some way, when all of these things were accomplished, when we had the greatest air power in yield? the world, the greatest naval power in the world, when all our people were t~ned to production, to say to Russia, "These are the terms on which we will become and remain your ally," instead of bringing home to us the message that they subscribed to the Atlantic Charter, that they subscribed to the United Nations, that they subscribed tq freedom of religion-all of which they did not subscribe to, and everything they do gives the lie to their subscription.

Mr. PEPPER. ·. Mr: President, one has but to hear the persuasive argument of the Senator from Illinois, one has but to remember the editorials and twisted news stories of the Chicago Tribune, with which, I say, - the Senator from Illinois on occasion found himself in agreement, to appreciate how great was the victory of Franklin D. Roosevelt in securing the legislation with which he could help to defend America and democracy in the world from Hitler and his gang in those trying days, when the opinion of this country was so bitterly aroused. ·

Mr. BROOKS. . Mr. President, will the Senator yield once more?

· Mr. PEPPER. I should be very glad to have the Senator ask a question. I would . rather not allow him to make a speech, although it is always interesting and perhaps informing. -

, Mr. · BROOKS. · Now, that we are talking about Hitler and Germany, and our willingness to meet them, I have just one suggestion . to · make · to the Senator. There-was another war called World War I, in which I met those Germans in the front line; · r · met them face · to face. I shot them, and they shot . me; and . that . is much different from merely talking about bravery on the floor of the Senate.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I do . not know what the able Senator from Illinois is trying to prove. I do not suppose anyone has questioned his braver], or the fact that he had - a creditable war record in World ' War I, and I do not suppose it fs necessary to make to his colleagues a suggestion of his bravery for them to be informed . about it. I think it is pretty generally known that the Senator had a good war record in World War I. It is surprising to me, having fought the Germans one time, he seemed so little disposed to keep them off the heads and necks of his fellow Americans a second time.

Mr. President, I am not aware of having made any eulogy to bravery here in the Senate. I have been talking about the part Franklin D. Roosevelt contributed in a time of national and world c:risis toward saving America and · democracy in the world. The question has been raised as to who helped Roosevelt, and who tried to thwart him in every herculean task he attempted to accomplish. However brave and however creditable the war record of the Senator from Illinois in World War I was, it is in sharp contrast, in my opinion, to his statesmanship in defense of America as World War II approached, through those crucial days, because I will sa. · that the judgment of history--

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President; will the Senator from ' Florida

Mr. PEPPER. Just a moment. The judgment of history, I dare say, will be far more decisive in the memory of men than anything the Senator from Illinois or the Senator from Florida might say here this evening. . But I am willing to put in . the RECORD, for history, the war record in World War II, and the days preceding it, of Franklin D. Roosevelt alongside the record of the able Senator from Illinois, and let mankind judge of the wisdom of the two.

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

Mr. PEPPER. I yield.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. May · I say that written in blood, fire, and heroism is . the sacrificial record of the Senator from Illinois, who displayed his defense of this country and his belief in Americanism on the field of battle, and in the face of the enemy who would have destroyed him, and not in forensics or speculation or talk.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, if the Senator thinks he has contributed anything, I am glad to have . yielded · part of my time for him to have done so.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. . . Mr. · President--

Mr. PEPPER. If he thinks he can contribute anything else so unessential and so irrelevant to it, I shall give him further time.

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President--

Mr. PEPPER. I take it the question at issue is the valor of -the Senator from Illinois. Is that what we are going · to debate? I am glad to have the testimony of the Senator from Iowa. ·

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Florida yield to the Senator · from Iowa?

Mr. PEPPER. I gladly yield . .

Mr. HICKENLOOPER. The question at issue is not necessarily · the valor of the Senator from Illinois, it is -the question of the symbolism of American sacrifice in the test, when American ideals and American philosophy are being tried. I honor the Senator from Illinois, as I do other Members of this body on both · sides of the aisle whom I can see around me, who have contributed equally, not of forensic ability, but of their own blood and courage in times past to defend the ideals in - which they believed.

· Mr. PEPPER. I thank the able Senator from Iowa.

Mr. President, it is not necessary for me to repeat that what we were discussing was the wisdom of a proposed amendment to the Constitution, the initiative of which comes largely from the other side of the aisle. I was saying that Franklin D. Roosevelt gave America and the world leadership which, in my opinion, made the difference between victory and defeat for the allied cause.

I am saying, Mr. President, that the wisdom of the American people in the reelection of Franklin D. Roosevelt was vindicated in his accomplishments in his third and his fourth terms as President of the United States, and Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.

I am talking about public policy, Mr. President, and I have not intentionally brought up the question of any Senator's valor. But I dare say the Senator from Illinois does not have a monopoly on that virtue in this body. If I were · to call the roll I think he would find himself in good and gallant company with colleagues of his who have not seen fit to rise and parade their own valorous accomplish­ velt. ments in World War I or World War II. Mr. President, I am not talking about personalities, I am talking about public policy and principles, and it was the other side of the aisle that injected the question about what was the attitude of the Republican Party upon some of the decisive votes at the time.

It has been said here this evening that we may have to fight Russia. I do not know whether we will have to fight Russia or not. I know we have had to fight Germany twice in our own time. The Senator from Illinois has pointed out his own conspicuous contribution to our victory the first time. I am saying, Mr. President, that as between Germany and Russia, :;r know that Germany Has tried to conquer the world twice. and made war upon us. I do not know what the Soviet Union will do; that is a different subject, about which a great deal can be said, concerning our relations with the Soviet Union, whether the fault perhaps may be distributed, and centered notaltogether in one place; but I am saying, Mr. President, that had Hitler conquered the Soviet Union, and England and 8.11 Europe, America probably would not have had the atomic bomb to fight a war · against Russia, if we ever have to fight one. I am saying that America would not be the strongest power on earth today, including Russia. I am saying that if Hitler had triumphed, he would have been master probably of the Eastern Hemisphere, and that in the whole of the Western Hemisphere there is not much over 250,000,000 people out of a world population of 2,000,000,000.

I am saying that if Hitler had won the war, Mr. President, we would not today have a Navy equal to all the other navies of the world, the real beginnings of which were begun by Franklin D. Roosevelt, some of which the party of the Senator from Illinois opposed here upon the Senate fl.oor. I am saying that if Hitler had won the war we would not have the most powerful air force on earth today, including the Soviet Union, a part of the increase of which the Republican Party opposed in the Congress.

I am saying if we have to fight Russia we are incalculably stronger, Mr. President, today, by virtue of · Hitler being crushed, with lend-lease, and with the strength we have acquired since those hectic days, than we would have been otherwise.

I am saying, Mr. President, that if Hitler had won the war and become the mas k : : of the Eastern Hemisphere, the battle would be raging this very night, and I do not know how many Senators on this floor might personally be involved in the battle. I know there are some who would be in uniform, who are now here, who are tonight sitting with us as colleagues, who might be engaged in battle in some far corner of the earth at this very minute; and I know that there are son after son, and perhaps daughter after daughter of Members of the Senate, who would be facing Hitler's cruel weapons probablY in the Western Hemisphere, if the counsel of men like the Senator from Dlinois and the Chicago Tribune had prevailed instead of the leadership of Franklin D. Roose-

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President-

Mr. PEPPER. I yield to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, I want to make one observation. I listened to the President's speech today. I think it is fair to say that the Congress of the United States probably ought to hear the evidence from the specialists in the different departments as to what will be done with the money which is requested, and so forth; but does not the Senator think it is a little premature to be talking about war with Russia until we know more about what the money is to be used for and more about the details of this program? I do not see why the Senator from Illinois should be talking about war with Russia at this particular time.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, I do not have the newspapers here before me, but I believe one could read in the columns of the Chicago Tribune a vituperation against Great Britain, back in those days, almost as severe as their present denunciation of the Soviet Union.

I know, Mr. President, that Britain at that time was held up as one of the monsters of the world, and because some of us advocated that we should help Britain, in order that we might assist in the defense of America, we were not only called pro-British but un-American. We were accused of saying we would lay down American lives, spill American blood, to save the British Empire. Those were the arguments used at that time against the defense of America and democracy on the earth. The same old game of trying to becloud and confuse the issue.

Mr. President, 1 have spoken about lend-lease. Does the record of Franklin D. Roosevelt as the Commander in Chief of our armed forces stand out before history so that it should be repudiated by this Senate in proposing to the American people a constitutional amendment to make it forever impossible for the people to elect another Franklin D. Roosevelt to such a position of leadership and power? I do not think . that would be the judgment of history, Mr. President. I do not think it is the judgment of America's generals, admirals, and air men who served under President Roosevelt without regard to party. I doubt that you could find a higher testimonial to President Roosevelt's leadership as Commander in Chief than you would get from General Marshall, General Eisenhower, Admiral Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, and Admiral Halsey, and all the rest of that galaxy of brilliant leaders who led America to the most glorious victory in arms the world has ever seen.

Mr. President, I am saying only this ,' that what is proposed here is to limit the right and the power of the American people in a moment of great crisis, when their country and their world tremble in the balance, to elect a man eligible and available whom they deem best fitted to lead them through the crucial time.

Is there anything more democratic than that?

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

Mr. PEPPER. As the Constitution is now written, as George Washington said, so well quoted here by other Senators on the floor, the American people have the power to elect a President as many times as they choose to do.

George Washington, writing to Lafayette, as we all know, said:

Under an extended view of this part of the subject, I can see no propriety in precluding ourselves from the service of any man who, in some great emergency, sh a ll be deemed universally most capable of serving the public need.

That is what George Washington said. I now yield to the Senator from Iowa. . Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. President, the Senator a moment ago referred to some historical programs of procedure for the American Government. He said that if certain philosophies had been followed, certain things would have happened. He said at that time, as I recall, · that Hitler was about either to extend or take over his dominion of the Eastern Hemisphere in Europe, or the eastern part of Europe. This is the question I should like to ask the Senator: The Senator was undoubtedly at the joint session today when the . President of the United States addressed the Congress in a most solemn and thoughtful message. I am wondering if the Senator will not concede that the sum total of that message was that, whether as a result of or in consequence of the policies we have been following, communism is today taking over the entire eastern part of Europe and threatening to control all of that hemisphere. I am wondering, Mr. President, whether the Senator p:refers the dominion of Europe by communism or whether he prefers the dominion of Hitler, or just what his position is.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President. we have been talking about the question of whether or not the people of the United States should have the free and untrammeled power to elect a man who is their President ; and whom they prefer, to either a second, a third. or a fourth term as President of the United States; and I have been citing the fact that the American people in a moment of emergency and crisis, as George Washington himself said, should have that power, and should not, by a United States Congress, either sitting in the calm of such a moment as this, or who may desire to strike a blow at the record of Franklin D. Roosevelt, to deprive them of the power to exercise their free prerogative in a moment of commanding crisis. That is the issue. I shall not be deviated from that issue by anything my Republican friends may say; but I will say that Franklin D. Roosevelt's record in bringing about good will between this country and Russia, in establishing harmony between this country and England and ' the other nations of the world, has not been excelled by any President in the Nation's history.

Now that the Senator from Iowa has asked a question, let me read a little testimonial to what Franklin D. Roosevelt accomplished in our foreign policy. These are not my words. They are the words of Mr. Sumner Welles, for many years Under Secretary of State of our country, whose distinguished service I think is not questioned by any appreciable number of Americans. I have the book in which the following words appeared originally entitled "Where Are We Heading?" written. by Mr. Welles, but I shall read a selected summary beginning on page 75 of the February 1947 issue of Omnibook Magazine. These are Mr. Welles' words:

Let's look at the world as it appeared by midsummer of 1944.

I need not say that that was then in the fourth term of Franklin D. Roosevelt. The United States was then approaching the peak of its strength.

I commend those words to Senators · who speak of our necessities · of the future.

It had become more powerful than any other nation of the earth. The fate of Germany was already sealed. While we then believed that Japan would continue the struggle for a longer period than transpired, her approaching defeat was clearly foreshadowed.

It was evident that ' Great Britain would be utterly exhausted upon the conclusion of the war. The signs · were already plain to all who cared to see them that the world order which . must then be created would bring freedom to the colonial peoples, and . that the liquidation of the British Empire was at hand. The British Commonwealth of Nations itself must undergo a profound transformation in the postwar period as a result of which the mother country's position would become far less dominant.

It was plain that only the Soviet Union could emerge from the war in a position of supremacy comparable to that of the United States. But while her potential strength was greater than ours, she clearly would require many years before her full strength could be exerted.

The United States had neither suffered the losses nor experienced the devastation undergone by the Soviet Union. We were already fully industrialized and our living standards were the highest in the world.

Mr. President, I interpolate to say that was at a time when we were not only maintaining our own armies and navies and air forces, but sustaining those of other countries of the world, and making an incalculable contribution to the world economy. We had then, under F rank lin D. Roosevelt's leadership, not only the strongest fighting forces but the strongest domestic economy that America had ever seen.

We possessed by far the greatest navy and the largest and most modern air force. Some 8 , 000,000 of our men were under arms, and this total could be rapidly expanded if necessary. We possessed the greatest developed natural resources of any nation, and our achievements in industrial production had become a source of amazement to our allies and foes alike. Finally, although the world at large did not yet know it, the Government of the United States had within its possession the secrets of the source of atomic power, and the first weapons utilizing the force of atomic fission · were already under manufacture.

The United States enjoyed an influence abroad and possessed an opportunity for leadership that no other major power had. The masses of the people, whether in Latin America, in the Far East, or in the occupied countries of Europe, regarded President Roosevelt as their champion. More than that, the United States, because of her past history, because of the beliefs of her people, and because of her democracy, was nowhere feared. She was known to possess no imperialistic ambitions; she was not suspected of desiring to extend her political or economic influence for purposes of domination, or for any other selfish ends.

As a result of the policies which President Roosevelt had carried out throughout the course of his administration, there existed ln the New World a well integrated inter-American system which gave the United States, in its international relations, the potential support of an entire hemisphere.

The relations between - the Chinese National Government and the United States were of the closest. So were relations between the United States and all the governments of western · Europe.

The ties established by the President with the elected . heads of the British government and of the governments of the British dominions were · closer than they had ever previously been between the chief executives of the English-speaking countries. And the personal understanding between President Roosevelt and Marshal Stalin, blunt as the messages which they exchanged may occasionally have been, had dissipated to some extent the cold suspicions of this country which had so long controlled the thinking of the leaders of the Soviet Union. A cooperative relationship had been achieved that power? would have seemed altogether impossible even 2 years before.

When Franklin Roosevelt died an epoch ended.

· Yes, Mr. President; those are the words ' of Mr. Sumner Welles. Could any man elected in November 1940 or November 1944 have made a greater record than that? That is the Franklin D. Roosevelt who not only was elected to a third term and a fourth term by the people of the United States, but would have been elected to a third or fourth term had he then been in such an office, by the people of the world. Had there been an election in Franklin D. Roosevelt's time, especially from November 1940 until his death, a free election, save in the enemy countries, of a President of the world, does any Senator doubt that Franklin D. Roosevelt would have been elected over any other man living on this earth? That was why, Mr. President, when the shocking news circled the globe that he had been smitten down under the labor and toil of his office, and his great spirit had at last passed across the last perilous river to the safety of the great beyond, there were not millions but hundreds of millions of moist eyes in mourning in every country on earth, perhaps even some in the enemy countries who better understood the essential future that they should have.

That was the President Roosevelt whose death caused Winston Churchill, as he walked down the aisle of a British church, to let tears unembarrassedly stream down his brave cheeks as he thought of the friend he had lost and the leader that mankind had no more.

That was the Roosevelt that made t . tens of thousands of Russians, according to the testimony of our diplomatic officials in Moscow, gather in front of the American legation and there with tears in their eyes and with husky voices to the person of our Ambassador paid their tribute to Franklin D. Roosevelt.

That was the man whose name Stalin whispered when he poured his lamentations into the ear of the American Ambassador to Russia.

That was the Franklin D. Roosevelt to whom in every country, little and large in the world, people poured out their homage.

There are some of us now in the Senate who were on the funeral train of the President which went to Hyde Park. All night long we saw the people lining the tracks along which that train wound in its mournful course to the final resting place of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and how the people poured out their hearts, not only at the loss of a President, but - at the departure of a personal friend, Franklin D. Roosevelt. There never will be in our time a man who grips the hearts of mankind the way Franklin D. Roosevelt did. ' They not only honored him, Mr. President, they loved him.

In conclusion, I think our people are to be safely trusted with their own destiny. That is the spirit of democracy and its intent. We do not need to protect the American people with a prohibition against a President whom they do not wish to elect; and if they wanted to elect him, have we the right to deny them the Someone may say, "This is a democratic proposal. We are merely giving the people the power to pass on whether they war. · a constitutional prohibition or not." Are we, Mr. President? What did the Senate do yesterday, except to deny to the people an opportunity to vote personally or through a representative directly on that question? We defeated by an overwhelming vote an amendment offered by the able Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON] which would have made the ratification of the proposed amendment subject to the action of conventions 1n three-fourths of the States, particularly elected for the purpose of passing on this constitutional amendment. ·

What is the present situation? In connection with the · proposed amendment the people are not to vote. The legislatures of three-fourths of the States alone, by ratifying it, would place it in the Constitution.

We know that the election of members of legislatures, even when beyond question, is not upon a single issue, but upon many issues. A county or district may vote for a representative or State senator because he is an advocate of good roads, because he is in favor of keeping cattle off the highways, because he will lower taxes, because he will protect monopoly or dissipate it, because he is friendly to the poor or the companion of the rich. We are too experienced in public life not to know that constituencies vote for senators and representatives in State legislatures upon innumerable issues. We are not submitting this question of the amendment of the Constitution to the people; we have denied them the right to make it the sole issue in the election of delegates to a convention. We say that the legislatures of the States are to be the bodies which will have the right to prohibit the people from the election of a President whom they may wish to elect for a second, third, or fourth term. Is that more democracy than we now enjoy?

The able Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. McGRATH] a former Solicitor General of the United States, pointed out here this afternoon in debate that every previous amendment to the Federal Constitution ha~enlarged the democracy of the people and not diminished it. Yet would we enlarge the right of the people by this proposal? No; we would reverse the tradition of more than 20 constitutional amendments which have steadily opened the doors of democracy to the people in ever-widening reach. We would say, "We the Congress, and we the Legislature, at best only your indirect representatives upon this issue, will deny to you . the power-even of all of youto elect a President of the United States whom you may happen to choose, because he happens already to have served in that exalted office."

This afternoon the able Senator from Texas [Mr. O'DANIEL] with more logic than he was given credit for-because his proposal received only his own voteoffered an amendment which would apply the same principle to all elective Federal officials. As I say, his proposal received only one vote.

Do Senators who have been Members of this body for more than one term wish to say that more than one term is too many? Are any Senators resigning because they think they are doing the public an injury by serving too long? Does any Senator serving his first term repudiate the right of the people to reelect him if they choose to do so? How inconsistent we are. But, of course, when we talk about electing Senators and Representatives, we are talking about ourselves.

I am reminded of the Irishman who was advocating socialism. He -was persuaded that socialism was a good policy. It looked fair and idealistic. In his warm Irish heart he said, "T i 1at is a good policy. I am for it." One day he was making a speech, and was making a great impression on his audience. He said, "My friends , you do not realize what a good principle this is. If I had a thousand acres of land, do you think I would be so selfish as not to be willing to give half of it to my fellowmen? If I had · a thousand dollars in the bank, do you think I would be so selfish as not to be willing to give half of it to my fellowmen? If I had two shoats, do you think I would be so selfish-no; I have two shoats." [Laughter.]

It is all right we say to limit the term of President, although, I dare say Senators are not without aspirations. I dare say that there are those in this body who would be willing to allow themselves to become victims of the ordeal of public service in the White House. I think Senators recall the story which "Czar" Reed is supposed to have told. It has been mentioned here previously. He was speaker of the House, and . he liked to prod the Senate. . He said one night he dreamed that the Congress had amended the Constitution and provided a new method of electing a President. The new method was that the President should be elected by a secret ballot of Senators. The momentous day arrived when the proposal was to be tried out for the first time. The galleries were naturally filled. The representatives of the press stood by intently to see what would be the result of the first trial of the new method of electing a President. Finally the golden urns were passed down the aisles and Senators deposited their secret ballots in the receptacles, which were passed up to the Presiding Officer to be canvassed. While everyone listened , with bated breath, the result was . announced, and it was discovered that every Senator had received one vote. [Laughter.]

There are Senators who may aspire to one term in the White House. If they are on the other side of the aisle, they are too good students of history not to recall that since Ulysses S. Grant no Republican President has been elected to serve two terms and has served them. So the Republicans have nothing to lose by this amendment. What they are trying to do is to keep the people from continuing to elect Democrats to more than one term. History is replete with examples of the people electing Democrats to two terms, and of Democrats serving two terms in the White House. One of our men was elected to a fourth term, by one of the greatest majorities ever given a President by the American people.

So, Mr. President, this proposal is not in the interest of democracy. No Senator can soothe his conscience by saying, "I feel that we should give the people an opportunity to vote on a constitutional amendment." What is proposed is to permit the publishers of newspapers who hated Roosevelt, propagandists, and people with money who would like to keep America from ever having another Roosevelt to influence enough legislatures to keep the people from having the power, even though the people wish to do so, to elect the man of their choice to the Presidency of the United States, in the face of the record of our founding fa t hers.

I shall not repeat what has been said here so many times. The other day the able Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL], in a very impres s ive speech, quoted George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and many distinguished leaders of our country. He quoted Jefferson as saying that in case the country were threatened with a monarchy he would allow himself to become a candidate for a third time. He quoted Alexander Hamilton, a gentleman who I understand is quoted with considerable approbation by the party on the other - side of the aisle.

The Senator from Alabama also quoted many other distinguished statesmen , including the late Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, who was also a. distinguished historian, and the great Senator Borah, who not so long ago thrilled the Senate with his magnificent voice and his great head and heart. The Senator from Alabama quoted innumerable others, many of them belonging to the party of our friends on the other side of the ai s leall opposing such amendment as · this and favoring the right of the people to elect a President as many times as they choose to elect him.

So, Mr. President, let no Senator think . that he is compelled in the inte r est of democracy to give a legislature the power to deny the people the right to elect the President they want to elect. That is not democracy, Mr. President. Every American, Democratic and Republican alike, every voter, might desire in a moment of crisis to continue another President in office in some future period of ordeal as we continued President Roosevelt. Yet, if this amendment were a part of the Constitution, every voting American could not do so. Is that democracy?

I think we can trust the people. Mr. President. How many times in 158 years has there been an exception to what is called the Washington tradition. Just once. Have we ever been faced with a greater crisis than that which faced us in 1940? Does anyone think or contend that President Roosevelt would have of- . fered himself, or that the American people would have elected him for either a third or a fourth term had it not been for the great international crisis that was confronting this country?

Mr. President, it has been said that the best way to defeat every dangerous ideology is to have a vital democracy. What could be more vital in a democracy than the power of the people to -elect their own President?

I shall conclude by reading something which I deem not inappropriate. These words were uttered in hushed sorrow at the grave of Franklin D. Roosevelt by the minister of his church at the ti~e of his funeral at Hyde Park: .

Now the laborer's task is o'er;

Now the · battle day is past;

Now upon the farther shore

Lands the voyager at last.

Father, in Thy gracious keeping Leave we now Thy ser v ant sleep in g. There the tears of earth are dried;

There its hidden things are clear; There the work of life is tried

B y a Juster Judge than here. F a t h er , in Thy Gracious keeping Leave we now Thy ser v an t s l eeping. There the penitents, that turn

To the cross their d y ing e y es , All the love of Jesus learn

At His feet in Paradi se . Father, in Thy · gracious keeping Leave we now Thy serv a nt sleep in g. There no more the powers of hell

Can prevail to mar their peace; C hr ist the Lord shall guard them well,

He who died for their release. Father, in Thy gracious keeping Leave we now Thy serv a nt sleeping. E a rth to . earth, and dust to dust,

Calmly now the words we say, Left behind, we wait in trust

For the resurrection day.

Father, in Thy gracious keep i ng

Leave we now Thy serv a nt s l eep ing .

Mr. President, let us leave the memory and the record, of Franklin D. Roosevelt sleeping in security in the hearts of the people of the world. Let us lea v e the pro t ection the people now have i n t h eir Constitution sleeping and secure in that immortal document.