March 7, 1947

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H. J. Res. 27) prov id ing an amendment to the Constitution of the United St at es relating to the terms of office of the President.

The PRESID .E NT pro tempore. The question is on the first committee amendment, which will be stated.

The CHIEF CLERK. On page 1, line 6; after the word "by", it is proposed to strilre out "the . legislatures of threefourths of the several States" and insert "conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution."

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the pending amendment to the Constitution would place the wisdom of the people in a strait-jacket. It would be a limitation on their right of free election. No matter what the emergency or what the danger, no matter how strongly the people might wish to continue a man in the Presidency, at the end of his second term they would be prohibited from doing so. The proposed amendment to the Constitution would place in the Constitution a rigid prohibition against the right of the people to reelect a man at the end of his second term. There is a vast difference between a rigid prohibition in the Constitution, absolutely denying such a right . to the people, and a custom under which the people ordinarily do not exercise the right. I have no disagreement with the custom of ordinarily electing our Presidents for not more than two terms. The custom is well and good in customary times to mee.t ordinary conditions, but the difficulty about the proposed amendment is that once this rigid prohibition is imposed on the people, they are absolutely bound by it until and unless. at some future date. the Constitution is again amended and the rigid prohibition removed.

We all know the difficulties attendant upon amending the Constitution. We realize what a long, slow, and tedious process it is. No man can possibly know what the future holds; no man can know what tomorrow may bring forth, what dangers there may be for our country, what emergencies the Nation may face. Who, standing on this floor 10 years ago, could have foreseen the momentous and revolutionary events which have occurred in the history of the United States and of the world during the past 10 years? When we contemplate the world today and recall what it was like 10 years ago we can readily realize how violent and revolutionary have been the changes. We are accustomed to think we live in the air age. Yet the world is moving forward so rapidl, that before we have passed out of the adolescence of the air age we find ourselves in the atomic age.

Within the past week many of us have been shocked by the revelations of conditions in Greece and Turkey, by the challenge of certain obligations and duties resting upon our country in those far-away lands which perhaps most of us had not even considered. Only a few days ago even so wise and level-headed and able a Member of this body as the distinguished junior Senator from Georgia [Mr. RussELL] suggested that constituent members of the United Kingdom, England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland be admitted into the American Union as States. This shows, Mr. President, how uncertain conditions are in the world today, and it suggests that many of the old moorings and the old landmarks seem to. have disappeared. No one, I repeat, can know what may lie ahead of us or what danger or emergency may confront our Nation in the days ahead. Why then, should we suggest writing into the Constitution of the United States a rigid prohibition which might prevent the American people from meeting a danger or an emergency as they in their wisdom may think best?

Mr. President . during the history of our country approximately 170 joint resolutions have been introduced, either in this body or in the House of Representatives proposing to limit the term of office of the President. No one of those resolutions has ever been able to command sufficient support on the part of the people of the United States to be passed by the necessary votes in both Houses of Congress. Why should we now, at this late date, after more than 150 years of our history under the Constitution, submit such a rigid prohibition for incorporation into the Constitution?

When we speak of a third term we think of George Washington, our first President, because it is said that he set the custom, that he established the precedent of a President's serving only two terms in office. Washington spoke very directly on the question of the wisdom of placing such a limitation on the people and the free election of their President. On April 28, 1788, he wrote a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette in which he spoke of the Constitutional Convention having given most careful consideration to this question, and of having finally come to the conclusion that there should be no limit on the people's right in the matter of the election of their President. Washington closed his letter to the Marquis de Lafayette with these words: 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, shall be deemed universally most capable of serving the publlc.

That was George Washington speaking 170 years ago. It illustrates the wisdom of Washington. He did not foresee the air age or the atomic age. He did not even foresee the railroads, the telegraph, the telephone, or any of the other inventions which have made the world one common neighborhood; but in his wisdom he foresaw that a great emergency might arise in which the people might wish to continue a man in office. So he said he saw no propriety in limiting the people in their right to meet an emergency as they deemed wisest and best.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HILL. . I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. The fact that George Washington refused a third term has been referred to as evidence that Washington was opposed to anyone serving a third term. I think the able Senator will agree with me that that is an inaccurate conclusion.

Mr. HILL. It is a wholly inaccurate conclusion. Not one word, not one expression, is to be found in George Washington's statements or his writings against a President serving more than two terms. - On the contrary, there is the express opinion which I have just read to the Senate. Anyone who has studied the history of George Washington should know that the principal reason stated in his . Farewell Add r ess for his not even considering a third term was a personal reason. He had been in command of the Continental A r my for 7 or 8 years; he had been away from his beloved Mount Vernon; he had served 8 years as President; and the desire closest to his heart was to r e tire from public service, to be relieved of the burdens and labors of public office, and return to his beautiful acres at Mount Vernon.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. It is accurate to say that he rejected a third term for the reasons stated by the Senator from Alabama, but it is wholly inaccurate to say that George Washington ever opposed the principle or the wisdom of anyone's being reelected to a third term.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. In that connection I shall not take the time of the Senate to read from Washington's Farewell Address. It was very eloquently read here only a few days ago by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. REVERCOMBJ; but I ask that at this point I may include in the RECORD an excerpt from the Farewell Address, which states very clearly that Washington did not desire a third term because he earnestly wished to retire; he devoutly wished tu be relieved of the burdens of public service.

There being no objection, the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the RE_9.0RD, as follows:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the executive government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed. to decline being considered among the number of those ~¥tY i a 1 of whom a choice is to be made.

I beg you, a the same time, to do me the justice to be assured, that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which bind& a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service which silence in my situation might imply, I am Influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest: no deficiency of grate‘ul respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible -vith both.

The acceptance o1 and continuance hitherto in the office to which your suffrages have twice call.ed me have been a . uniform sacrifice of inclination to the opinion of duty, and to a deference for what appeared to be your desire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, consistently with motives which I was not at liberty to disregard, to return to that retirement from which I had been reluctantly drawn. The strength of my inclination to do this, previous to the last election, had even led to the preparation of an address to declare it to you; but mature reflection on the then perplexed and critical posture of our affairs with foreign nations, and the unanimous advice of persons entitled to my confidence, impelled me to ab a ndon the idea. I rejoice that the state of your concerns, external as well as internal, no longer renders the pursuit of inclination incompatible with the sentiment of duty or propriety; and am persuaded, whatever partiality may be retained for my services, that in the present circumstances of our country, you will not disapprove my determination to retire.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

' Mr. LUCAS. I think history shows that G eorg e Washington did not desire even a second term.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. G eorg e Washington was willing to serve for a second term only because of the cond iti ons then ex ist ing in Europe. Men highly placed in the Government and men influential throughout the country appealed to him, in view of the situation in Europe, to continue in office for a second term; and George Washington agreed to serve for a second term only because of his sense of duty to his country. ·

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. While the Senator from Alabama is discussing the first President of the United States I wish to call the attention of the Senate, as well as the attention of the country, to a further fact, which, of course, the Senator from Alabama may later include in his remarks: George Washington was the President of the Constitutional Convention and presided over that Convention throughout its deliberations. He . heard all the arguments, both pro and con; and I think the record shows that during all that time he never entered into the debate either on one side or the other; but, of course, he finally voted with the majority on that question.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois is exactly correct, Furthermore, in his letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, George Washington referred to this matter and made clear that his position regarding it was the one I have stated.

Mr. President, neither q_~ there be any doubt as t~ how this question evolved in the Constitutional ConventiOn. As the Senator from Illinois well knows, it was first suggested that there be a limit on the length of service of any Presidentnamely, one term of 7 years-but that he be elected by the National Legislature, in other words, by the Congress. However, the more the framers of the Constitution thought about the matter, the more they debated it, and the more thoroughly they explored it, the more definitely they came to the conclusion that the President should not be elected by the National Legislature, and that there should be no limit on his term of office.

It is interesting to know, as we all do, that under the will of the people of the United States, the election of the President has for many years been, not by the electoral college, but by the people themselves. The people themselves have asserted their right to elect their President.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Much has been said about the precedent set by George Washington. While my colleague is speaking about it, I should like to inqUire whether it is true that in his Farewell Address, George Washington mentioned the fact that at the end of his first term he had actually prepared a farewell address, intending to give up the office at that time, but that he was prevailed upon to accept a second term because of the troubled conditions then existing? Is it not also true that at the end of his second term those conditions had cleared up to such an extent that he felt free to ask the people to relieve him; and d i d he not make the definite statement that patriotism did not forbid his taking that course?

Mr. HILL. The · Senator is exactly correct. He accepted a second term only because of what he felt was the compulsion of duty to his country. He did not wish to have a second term.

Mr. SPARKMAl'f. Certainly it is fair to draw the inference from what he said there that had those conditions continued to exist at the end of his second term, he would have accepted a third term.

Mr. HILL. He practically said as much in his letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

Mr. SPARKMAN. And he also indicated it in his .Farewell Address.

Mr. HILL. Yes; he did in both his Farewell Address and in his letter to the Marquis de Lafayette.

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. KNOWLAND in the chair). Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Arkansas?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Inasmuch as the Senator from Alabama has been discussing George Washington's Farewell Address, let me inquire whether he recalls what Washington said· in his Fare- well Address about the growth of political parties.

Mr. HILL. Of course, at that time there were no political parties, as we know them today. George Washington did not favor political parties; the Senator from Arkansas is correct about that. But, after all, the question we are considering today has nothing whatever to do with political parties.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. George Washington spoke of the growth of political parties as being one of the great dangers to government, and I thought there possibly might be a little partisan politics involved in the joint resolution which is now before the Senate.

Mr. HILL. The Senator from Alabama is indeed correct about politics in the pending resolution, and I shall refer to it later in my remarks.

Mr. President, we know that none of to say: the founding fathers was more strongly in favor of rotation in office than was Thomas Jefferson. No man feared autocratic power more, or was more conscious than he of the threat of autocratic power. Yet we find the following statement made by Mr. Jefferson in a letter written on January 6, 1805, to his friend, Colonel Taylor, of Virginia:

There is, however, but one circumstance that could enga.ge my acquiescence in another election; to wit, such a division about a successor as might bring in a monarchist. But this circumstance is impossible.

That statement by Thomas Jefferson shows that although he was the strongest advocate of rotation in office, nevertheless he recognized that there might arise a situation involving a danger and an emergency in which he h i mself would favor a continuation in office of the President.

Mr. President, I believe that Alexander Hamilton is generally credited as being, if not the founding father, certainly the spiritual father of the Republican Party. I wish to call the attention of the Senate, and particularly the attention of my Republican friends on the other side of the aisle, to what Alexander Hamilton had to say on the question of a limitation of the Presidential term. In the Federalist he wrote that the President-

Is to be elected for 4 years, and is to be eligible as often as the people of the United States shall think him worthy of their confidence.

Then he added:

There is no nation which has not, at one period or another, experienced an absolute necessity of the services of particular men, in particular situations, perhaps it would not be too strong to say to the preservation of its political existence. How unwise, therefore, must be every self-denying ordinance, as serves to prohibit a nation from making use of its own citizens, in the manner best suited to its exigencies and circumstances.

. Mr. President, in connection with this statement by Alexander Hamilton, it is interesting to think of Winston Churchill and of the conditions which existed in Britain at the time when Mr. Churchill came into office during the past war. It is not necessary for me to attempt to depict those conditions to the Senate. I think most of us have wondered what might have been the fate of Britain but for the courage and leadership of Mr. Churchill in that dreadful hour.

John Quincy Adams spoke on this subject. He saw ho reason for a limitation on the tenure of office or the number of terms which a President might serve. Other of the founding fathersJames Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, and Roger Sherman, who likewise were members of the constitutional conventionhad strong convictions on the subject: they were opposed to any limitation on the people in their right of free election of their President.

Perhaps one of the best statements ever made on this subject was made by a former President of the United States when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. I r-efer to James Buchanan. In 1829, on the floor of the House of Representatives, he had the following The day may come, when dangers shall lower over us, and when we may have a president at the helm of State who possesses the confidence of the country, anC: is · better able to weather the storm than any other pilot; shall we, then, under such circumstances, deprive the people of the United States of the power of obtaining his services for a second term? Shall we pass a decree, as fixed as fate, to bind the American people and prevent them from ever reelecting such a man? I. am not afraid to trust them with this power.

Mr. President, in those words Representative Buchanan, later President Buchanan, summed up eloquently and conclusively the case against the pending amendment.

To come to a more recent period, let me refer to a Republican who challenged my admiration more than any Republican of our time, Theodore Roosevelt. Let me read what he said:

If , for instance, a tremendous crisis occurred at the end of the second term of a man like Lincoln, as such a crisis occurred at the end of his first term, it would be a veritable calamity if the Americ a n people were forbidden to continue to use · the services of the one man who they knew, and did not merely guess, could carry them through the crisis. • • •

While it is well to keep it as a custom, it would be a mark both of weakness and of unwisdom for the American people to embody it into a constitutional provision which could not do them good and on some given occasion might work real harm.

Mr . President, why put such an amendment as this in the Constitution? Of some 32 different '?residents only one has been elected for more than two terms. Can we not trust the wisdom, the judg- · ment , of the people of the United States? Why put the iron hand of this rigid prohibition on the people of the United States?

The great protagonist and contemporary of Theodore Roosevelt, . Woodrow Wilson, spoke on this · subject, too. When he was asked about limiting a President to one 6-year term, with prohibition against reelection, he made the following statement-

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield before he leaves Theodore Roosevelt?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. The Senator was discussing . what Theodore Roosevelt said. · He will also remember that Theodore Roosevelt said at one time after finishing his second term, he would never be a cand i date for President again. That was in 1908.

Mr. HILL. He did.

· Mr. LUCAS. But we all recall that · in 1912 he threw his hat in the ring. I think those were the very words he used, "My hat is in the ring." It will also be recalled that at that time, in 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, being a candidate for President for a third time, got more votes than did President Taft, who was then . running for a second term.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct, and I was coming to that later in my remarks. ·•

Mr. LUCAS. My only reason for interrupting was that I thought the Sena- . tor was leaving the discussion of Theodore Roosevelt.

Mr. HILL . No; I expected to return to Theodore Roosevelt, who was such a dynamic man that it is difficult at times to refrain from discussing him. Roosevelt received 88 and Taft received only 8 electoral votes in the election of 1912. But I shall come to that in a moment, if the Senator will bear with me.

I was about to quote that Woodrow Wilson said on this question:

Put the customary limitation of two terms Into the Constitution, 1f you do not trust the people to take care of themselves.

That is the whole question here today: If we do not trust the people, if we do not have faith in the people to act with wisdom, to act with sound judgment, to act with intelligence, to do that which is wisest and best, then we are justified in limiting them in their actions by such a const i tutional amendment as the one now proposed. ·

Woodrow Wilson also said:

We singularly belie our own principles by seeking to determine by fixed constitutional provision what the people shall de t ermine for themselves.

We say we believe in the people, that · the people should be sovereign, that they should be the ruler, and, indeed, that they are the rulers. But as Woodrow Wilson well said, we singu la rly belie those expressions and principles of democracy-

By seeking to determine by fixed constitutional provision what the people shall determine for themselves.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President­

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Alabama yield to the Senator from Connecticut?

· Mr. HILL. I yield. .

Mr. BALDWIN. I have listened to much of the argument advanced by the learned Senator from Alabama, but on the particular point he is now raising, let me inquire would it not be the people who were deciding for themselves if this joint resolution were passed and the whole · question were submitted to conventions in the several States? A great many people think this would be a good constitutional change. Why not let them decide that question for themselves? ·

Mr. HILL. In theory, it would be the people deciding, perhaps, but we know something about conventions; we know something about how delegates are elected; we know something about what · happens in conventions. Why should we submit this question to conventions, · when the people themselves, by direct vote , by going to the ballot boxes and themselves voting, could pass on the question? I shall come to that point later.

The Senator from Connecticut refers to constitutional conventions, and I notice that the joint resolution reported by the Committee on the Judiciary proposes to submit the question of ratification to constitutional conventions in the States. Having been a Member of Congress for a long time, and having observed conference committees over a series of years, I have serious doubt whether the pending measure, if it shall be passed by the Senate, will come out of the conference with a provision for ratification by constitutional conventions. When the resolution wa.s before the House of Representatives the gentleman from Mississippi [Mr. CoLMER] offered an amend- · ment to have the question submitted to constitutional conventions rather than the State legislatures, and the Colmer amendment was shouted down. Knowing conferences with the House as t do, I rather fear that when this provision goes to conference the House conferees will be found standing adamant in their insistence that the House provision be accepted and that the amendment be submitted to the State legislatures.

I shall discuss that question & little later in my remarks, but I may say to the Senator now that if this amendment is submitted that it will go to the people with a certain recommendation from the Congress; it carries a congressional imprint which gives it a certain urge, as it were, for approval by the people.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. BALDWIN. In the election of 1940, and again in 1944, did not upward of 20 , 000,000 people in the United States express the opinion that they thought the President oug h t not to serve more than two terms? Of course, that was intermingled with the other issues in the campaign, but it is well to use that as an argument against, as well as an argument for, the Senator's position.

Mr. HILL. The Senator from Connecticut indulges in a violent presumption when he says that all the 20,000,000 people voted on the third-te r m issue. For instance, I do not imagine my able and distingu i shed friend from Connecticut would have voted for the Democratic candidate, regardless of whether there had been any question of a third term. I am sure he would not have voted for the Democratic candidate.

Mr. BALDWIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. BALDWIN. The Senator says I am · indulging in a violent presumption by suggesting that upward of 20 , 000,000 people voted against a third or a fourth term. I might remind my good friend that he is also indulging in a more violent presumption in . intimating that twenty-three-mill i on-odd people voted for it. So it cuts both ways.

Mr. HILL. Twenty-three-million-odd people exercised their right to continue a man in office for a third term.

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

Mr. HIL 1?. I yield.

· Mr. LUCAS. I should like to know where all the excitement with respect to the proposed constitutional amendment arises. The Senator from Illinois has received exactly eight letters from his constituents on this question. That is a pretty fair indication that the people of Illinois and of the Nation are not very much excited about the constitutional limitation which it is now sought to write into the Constitution. They are more interested in the high co"st of liv- . ing; in the portal-to-portal pay bill; and in other labor measures than they are in this particular question. This is a political issue, and that is all there is to it. Consider the vote in the House of Representatives. The record in the House of Representatives-and the able Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] used it · as an argument on Wednesday iast-shows that 44 Democrats voted favorably on this issue. The Senator from Wisconsin did not state the fact that in the House of Representatives not a single Republican voted against this issue; yet this is referred to in the discussion as being a nonpartiSan approach to a great question of this kind.

Mr. H IL L . Of cou r se , as the S e n at or from I lli no i s su ggest s, if this we r e not a po liti c al ma t te r t i wou l d not be ru she d on to t h e flo or of th e Sena t e wi t hout he arings.

M r . L U C A S. O f cou rs e not.

Mr . H I LL . It woul d no t be r u she d in a head of all t h e important l egislation t o w hi c h t he Sen at or has referred .

Mr. BAlDW I N . Mr. P resident , w ill th e Se n ator yield, t o permit me t o an ­ s wer the stateme n t ab o ut t hi s b e i ng a p olitical matte r ?

Mr . HILL . I yiel d.

Mr. BALDWIN . I think that is rathe r a ridiculous as s umption to m a ke. O f co urse it is political. O urs is a political f orm o f governmen t, a party fo r m of g overnment, and w e a r e o nly f oolin g ou rsel v es whe n w e sa y w e ar e no t indulg ­ ing in po lit ic s . I h op e we a re indulg i n g in po liti cs of the h ighest o rder , p o litic s in th e sens e of p olitic s b eing the sc i en ce of g ove rnment . n I t hi s s itua t i o n I ho s u l d li k e t o quo t e as auth o rit y t h e fou nde r of the D em oc r a ti c Pa rt y w ho, a wa y b a ck in 18 0 5 , s a i d :

The ser vi ce for 8 ye a rs w i th a power to remove at the e n d of the . first four, com e s ne a r l y t o my pr i nc i ple as correc t ed by e x­ peri en c e ; a n d it is in adherence t o th a t, th a t I d e t er mine to withdr a w at the end of my second term. The d a nger is that t h e indulgence and att a chmen t s of the p e o p le w ill keep a m a n in t he ch ai r af t er he becomes a do t ard, that reelec ti on throu g h li f e s h all become h a bitual, and election for li f e follow th a t.

May I say further--

Mr. H I LL. Mr. President , I do not wish to be discourteous to the S e nator, but I shou l d prefer that he make his speech in his own time, because I should rea ll y like to proceed.

Mr. BALDWIN. I beg the Senator ' s pardon.

Mr. HILL. I yield. I do not want to be discourteous.

Mr. BAlDW I N. I close by saying that I u n der s tand the Senator does not subsc ri be to that pronouncement of doc t rine by Thomas Jeffe r son. . ... 7

Mr . HILL. I do not know whether the Senator was on the floor at the time, but I read to the Senate a little earlier in my remarks the doctrine of Thomas Jefferson to which I subscribe, a doctrine exp r e s sed by Thomas Jefferson in the year 1805 , when, in a letter written to Colonel Taylor , of Virginia, on January 6 , 1805, Mr. J e fferson said:

There is, however , one circumstance that could engage my acquiescence in another election; to wit, such a division about a successor as might bring in a monarchist. But ' this circumstance is impossible.

In other words, Jefferson says that there might arise circumstances or conditions involving danger or an emergency, and in such event he would acquiesce in another election.

Mr. BAlDWIN. In answer to my good friend, I am of the opinion from reading other statements made by Jefferson , that his final decision was that whatever the circumstance might be other considerations against a third term far outweighed the arguments for it. It seems to me that is the point.

Mr. HILL. I think not. I t hink J efferson's language speaks for itself. I think it is very clear. Mr. Jefferson's langua g e is clear th at · un de r ce r t a in c i r­ cu ms t a nc e s he wou l d acquiesce in ano ther e le c ti o n .

M r. S A L T ONS T ALL . Mr. P r esid en t, w ill th e Senat or y ield ?

Mr. HIL L. I yiel d t o t he Sen at or f r om M as sachusetts .

Mr . S ALT O NSTAL L. P ossibl y this is n ot the appropriate time t o ask th e quest i on I am about to a s k , and if i t is not , the S enator , I h op e , will t e ll m e so; but he has quoted Washington , H a mil t on, B u chanan, Wil s on, and Theo ­ d o re Roosevelt, all o f whom were i n p o­ s itions o f auth o r i ty and resP.onsibilit y man y y ears ag o. In th e l ast 30 ye a rs many c h a nges ha ve taken place in f o rms o f go v ernmen t t h rough o ut t h e w o rld . W e hav e seen greater co ncentrati on s of p ower, i ncludi n g a m uch gr e ater co n ­ c entration o f p ow er in the Go ver n men t o f th e U nite d S tat es . D oe s no t he t h o n­ o r a ble Senat o r t h ink t ha t th a t al ter s t h e situat ion, so t ha t the o pini o ns o f m a ny of t hos e he has ci te d h a ve be c o m e out of d ate, a n d d o es he n ot b eli eve t ha t the que st ion b e fo r e us tod a y co n cerns m u ch m or e t h e last 30 ye ar s than a n ything t ha t h a d happened during the previous 200 ye ars ?

Mr. HILL. No; I think that the dicta t ors hi ps of recent y e ars are a reversion to e a rly tyrannies in that power has b e en t a ken out of the hands of the peo p le, as the Senator from Massachuse tt s sugges t s and put into the hands of the few. The Senator will recall that Wood r ow Wilson spoke about fi g hting · world War I to make the world safe for democracy. Unfortunately and tragically most of C1 e democracies that came into being at the end of that war, and t h at were in existence at that time, have ' cea s ed to be.

The power has been taken out of the hands of the people and put into the hands of a few. That is the very reason · th a t I am so strongly opposed to this proposed constitutional amendment. I w a nt the power to remain in the hands of the people. I trust the people. I have . faith in them. I do not want to deny them this power.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. As a thought-provoking answer to the question raised by the distinguished is hed Senator from M a s s achuse t ts I should like to remind the Senator that when the founders of the Republic gave birth to the Constitution of the United States they had been living under a king for many long years. Much is said today about dictatorships. We know that kings of that day were just as ruthless, arbitrary, capricious, brutal, and vile as any dictators who have appeared on the scene in later . years.

Mr . . HILL. We know too that every nation in the world, except our own and tiny Switzerland, was under an absolute king or monarch.

Mr. LUCAS. That is correct and notwithstanding that experience of being governed · rned by kings which the founders of the Republic had for many years they . set forth, after long and bitter debate, what we find in the Constitution today.

Mr. SALTON.J T ALL. Mr. Pres ide nt, will th e S enat o r y i eld?

Mr. HILL. Y es ; I ie y ld.

M r. S AL TON ST ALL. May I a s Y in r epl y to the d isting u is h ed S enat o r from Illinois, that th e quotation s from the early P r e s idents an d others in au t hor i ty i n our history showed t h at they w ante d n o m a n to r ema i n in offi c e for to o long a t i me .

Mr . HI L L . T he quot a tions show th a t t hos e men wanted thE! peo p l e to re tai n the p ower , and t he tight t o u s e th e ir wisdom and their b e st j udg m e n t in con ­ tinuing a ma n in o ffi ce, in a g r eat cr is is o r emergency . That i s what they sh o w . Mr. President, i t has not be e n very lo ng since the leoni n e Senat o r Bo r ah , o f I daho, s a t on this floor. Many o f u s wh o are present today ha d the great p r ivileg e o f serving with h im . It i s interesting to note what S e nator Bora h h a d t o saY . S peaking o n thi s fl oor not m a ny y ear s ag o, h e s tate d:

O ne of t he f undam e nta l re a sons for o ppo s­ in g the jo int r e s o l uti on-

T ha t was a re s olut i on , of co urs e , to li m it the t er m, to li m it t h e r igh t of t h e people to elect their Pre si dent-

One of the fu n d a me n tal re a sons for o p posin g the joint resolu ti on i s th a t h t e peop lewho could be t r u st ed to de t erm l i.Le w h e th er or not t hey d es ire a Pres i dent for a s e c on d te r m m ay al s o be trus t ed to ' de t erm i ne w he ther or not they desire a President for a third term.

In other words, Senators in favor of th i s amendment are say i ng, "Well we will let them e l ect the President the 'first time; we will let them elect him the second time; but we do not tru s t them so f a r as the th i rd time is conce r ned. We who oppose the amendment have fa it h in their wisdom , in th ei r judgment, in their patrioti s m, to let them determine whether they think it is to the be s t interes t s of our country, and whether they feel th a t the needs and the conditions of · our country demand that a President be re t ained in o ffi ce . "

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

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

Mr. LUCAS. Does the Senator understand that an amendment will be propo s ed, limiting S e nators to two terms?

Mr. H I LL. If it is, I readily predict it will not receive a handfull of vo t es.

Mr. LUCAS. I was told that a S e nator was thinking of introducing such a bill. It was one of the rumors that go around and which we hear.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. OVERTON. For many years in the State of Louisiana we have enjoyedanp I used the word "enjoyed" advisedly-a constitutional inhibition aga i nst the Governor of the State succeeding himself. He can have one term of 4 years . A similar provision is · to bn found in the constitutions of othe ;: States. Am I to be told that the people o t' such States which have adopted such A , · provision have no · confidence in them- selves? These St a te constitutions were for the . most part adopted ' by the people. The constitutional amendment under consideration would be submitted for ratification to the people assembled in conventions in the different States. Why cannot the people of the United Sta t es say, "We think it is unsafe for a President to have the power to succeed himself for a fourth term?" Why cannot the people say, "In our opinion the Pres i dent, who may be popular and who may be persua si ve, and who may have a greedy grasp for power will, the longer he remain s in office, be more able to control the elections, and he will by vir t ue of his high office be in a position to exercise a po t ent political influence for his own bene fi t and his own a g grand i zement"?

Th a t, Mr. President, is the attitude of the people of my State. It is not that they do not have any confidence in themselves; but they do not have such a superlative degree of confidence in the elected Chief Executive as to say that he might not use the power of his office for political purposes.

Mr. LUCAS. I was wondering if the Senator from Louisiana thinks we made a mistake in 1940?

Mr. OVERTON. Indeed, I do. When Roosevelt announced for a third term, I came out openly in the newspapers and opposed his nomination. And when he announced for a fourth term, I opposed his nomination. But after he was nominated, being a Louisiana-born, dyed-inthe-wool Democrat who never scratched the Democratic ticket in his life on general election day, I went through and "stamped the rooster," which is the emblem of the Democratic Party in Louisiana, and thereby voted for all the Democ r a t ic electors and for every Democrat on the ticket from ward constable on up. But when it came to the nomination for a third and a fourth term, I recorded in the newspapers, not once but a number of times, my opposition to the renomination of Roosevelt to be President of the United States. I am sorry the Senator from Illinois does not keep up with current history.

Mr. LUCAS . Oh, I know the Senator was a g ainst the renomination of President Roosevelt in the convention, but I was wondering what he did in the general election. He now takes such an unqualified position and pleads so eloquently against the great danger that is involved that I do not see how he could have supported Roosevelt in 1940 under such conditions.

Mr. OVERTON. Oh, there are other States. reasons, and I think the Senator knows the other reasons. In Louisiana we have got to be Democrats. We have got to be Democrats because we want a Caucasian government in Louisiana, and that is the best way to have it.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, my good friend the Senator · from Louisiana was in effect propounding a question to me in what he said. Permit me to say that I can see no analogy whatever between the Governor's office and the office of the President of the United States. With all due respect to the Governor and to his office and to its powers and importance, that office, in respect to its importance to the people of the United States, in respect to the problems which may or will confront it, is not iii any way whatever comparable to the office of President of the United Stat e s.

There has never been any office in all the world's history that has placed so much responsibility upon the shoulders of one m a n, that has brought so many problems for solution to any one man, that involves so much so far as the fate of his country and of other countries are concerned, as the office of the President of the United States does today.

Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will the Senator again yield to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. OVERTON. That is the very reason I favor this constitutional amendment. There is vested in the President of the United States not only a greater responsibility than that vested in any go v ernor but there is vested in him an infinitely greater power. When he becomes President of the United States to serve for two terms there is an opportunity for him not only to be elected for a third term by reason of the exercise of the tremendous power which he has, but to make a life termer of himself. That is a danger which we confront. From that we might drift into a dynasty.

Mr. HILL. The Senator has branched off onto the subject of dynasties. I do not want to enter into a discussion of that subject. I want to talk about dem o cracy.

Mr. OVERTON. I understand that. A governor has a great deal of power. The President has much greater power. At the time of the adoption of the Constitution the governors of the several Sta t es had greater powers than did the President. But gradually the central government has encroached upon the powers of the local governments. Greater and greater power has been concent r ated in the hands of the President until, when elected, he stands like a great giant over the body politic of the United S t ates, and he cannot only succeed himself for a second term but, if he desires, he has a very good opportunity to succeed himself ' for a third term, a fourth term, and a fifth term until he perishes in his office.

Mr. HILL. Of course, the President has no power whatever to continue himself in office for a second term, a third term, or for any other additional term or terms. The only way any man can be President of the United States is by the suffrage of the people of the United

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

Mr. HILL. I yield. _

Mr. BALDW I N. I take it the Senator believes there has been no man in the history of the United States who relied more firmly on the belief that the people knew what was best for them than did Thomas Jefferson. Is that not so?

Mr. HILL. Thomas Jefferson certainly had great faith in the people.

Mr. BALDWIN. Undoubtedly he had great faith in the people. My good friend from · Alabama a little while ago read a letter which Thomas Jefferson wrote to Mr. Taylor in 1807, as I recall, in which there was an intimation to the effect that if the country were in difficulty at the time of the ending of his second term that might be occasion for his continu,i.ng in office. Is that correct?

Mr. HILL. That was not his language, but that was the gist of what he said.

Mr. BALDWIN. If I may I should like to read excerpts from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to Henry Guest · in January 1809, which, as I recall, was after Jefferson ceased to be President. He said:

I am sensible of the kindness of your rebuke on my determin a tion to retire from offi c e at a time when our country is laboring und e r difficulties truly great. But if the principle of rotation be a sound one, as ~ conscientiously believe it to be with respect to this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to dispense with 1t, because there never will be a time when real d i fficulties will not exist, and furnish a plausible pretext for dispensation. You suppose I am "in the prime of life for rule." I am sensible I am not; and before I am so f a r declined as to become insensible of it, I think it right to put it out of my own power.

Apparently between the time Jefferson wrote the letter to Mr. Taylor and the time he wrote the letter to Mr. Guest he may have had a change of heart. Nevertheless, it seems to me, Mr. President, that the later statement of Thomas Jefferson is most conclusive on the subject of whether or not difficulties can be so great as to require that a man be continued in the Presidential office.

I thank the Senator from Alabama for yielding to me.

Mr. HilL. As I understood what the Senator from Connecticut read, Jefferson made some reference to his physical condition. The idea was that his physical condition, among other things, would not permit him to accept the place for a third term. But when be was physically sound and able to carry on the office he declared that there was a circumstance under which he would acquiesce in continuing in office.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. BAI:llJ)WIN. The language used by Thomas Jefferson was this:

But if the principle of rotation be a sound one, as I conscientiously believe it to be with respect to this office, no pretext should ever be permitted to d i spense with it.