March 7, 1947

Mr. HILL. The Senator from Connecticut simply took a sentence from the context. He must go further and read the statement of Mr. Jefferson which I read.

Mr. STEWART. I was not in the Chamber when the Senator from Alabama began his address. Reference was made by the Senator from Connecticut to the fact that we often refer to Thomas Jefferson as the founder of the Democratic Party, which is correct. I do not know whether the Senator from Alabama quoted from the founder of the Republican Party on this subject, but I have before me a quotation from Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. HILL. I will say to my friend that I quoted from Alexander Hamilton.

Mr. STEWART. He was the founder of the Republican P a rty. In a letter which appears in the Feder a list, and in which he had written in March 1788, when the newly drafted Constitution was being circulated among the States · for approval, Mr. Hamilton said, in supporting the framers of our Constitution in their position that no limitation should be placed upon the number of terms a man might serve as President . of the United States:

A fourth ill effect of the exclusion (that is, limitation on number of terms) would be the banishing of men from stations in which, 1n certain emergencies of the state, their presence might be of the greatest moment to the public interest or safety. There is no nation which has not, at one period or another, exp _ experienced an absolute necessity @f ' the services of · particular men in particular situations; perhaps tt would not be too strong to say to the preservation of its political existence. How unwise, therefore, 111ust be every such 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 . . Without supposing the personal essentiality · of the man, it is evident that a · change of the Chief Magistrate at the breaking out of a How prophetic his words wereor at any similar crisis, for another ; even of equal merit, would at all times ' be detrimental to the community, inasmuch as it would substitute inexperience to ex c experience, and would tend to unhinge and set · afloat the already settled train of the administration.

If that is repetition-whi . ch it perhaps is to a certain . extent-! apologize to the · Senator. But I · wished · to make that observation at this particular time because it seems that the founders of the two parties are somewhat at variance in their , r opinions. Last night I thought I had my · mind pretty well made up on this ouestion; but after . reading considerable from Jefferson and Hamilton I find myself more at sea than ever. As a matter of fact, both of them seem to have weighed this question and to have expressed their opinions on both sides, as is often done here in the Senate. ·

As I say, I find myself somewhat dis- · turbed as to how to vote o the question; but the chief thing to tbe decided here today, as I see it, is whether or not this question shall be submitted to the people, as, indeed, all resolutions which have ' for their purpose the amendment of the Con . Constitution must be. But this question would not have arisen, would it, if it had not been for the fact that President Roosevelt was elected for a third and a fourth term.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. In the history of our country there have been approximately 170 such resolutions, none of which was able to muster sufficient strength or support from the people to pass both Houses of Congress.

Mr. STEWART. I remember on one occasion reading a statement by Jefferson, when he was insisting that perhaps there should be a limitation on the number of terms, to the effect that if such a limitation were not adopted in the early history of the country, perhaps it would never be adopted, because he had the feeling that the Government would continue to grow stronger and continue to encroach upon the liberties of the people, and t.hat the liberties of the people would continue to be surrendered to such encroachment.

Mr. HILL. Instead of encroaching on the liberties of the people, the history of our country shows that the people have obtained more and more rights and greater and greater power. A study of the amendments to the Constitutionand I expect to refer to them shortly in my address-discloses that we have protected the people in their rights, and augmented and extended them.

As · I stated a little while ago, so · far as the election of President is concerned, instead of carrying out the original intent of having the President ele'Cted by the electoral college,' almost from the beginning, as a practical matter, the President has been elected by the direct vote of the people. · ·

So far as the . President being able to continue himself in office is concerned, he has no power to do so. He cannot do . it unless the people, by their suffrage, vote, to continue him in office.

It is most interesting to note . in this connection that of the 33 · Presidents of the · United States, only 8 have served two full consecutive terms. As we know, Grover Cleveland .served two terms, but they were not consecutive. But of the 33 Presidents we have had in the United States, only · 8 have been able to serve two . full consecutive terms; and of the eight only three have served since the War Between the States. During that whole period of 85 years since the War Between the States, only three Presidents have been reelected and -, have served for two consecutive terms.

Mr. LUCAS rose.

Mr. OVERTON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may address a question to both the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Tennessee?

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, there are three Senators on their feet. . Let the Senator from Tennessee conclude. ,

Mr. OVERTON. I should like to address one brief question to the Senator from Alabama and the Senator from Tennessee.

Mr. HILL. I yield for that purpose.

Mr. OVERTON. Is it not a fact that at one time Hamilton advocated a monarchy for the United States?

Mr. HILL. He advocated life tenure. Every schoolboy knows that.

Mr. STEW ART. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield. .

Mr. STEWART. One interesting observation concerning Mr. Jefferson's insistence from time to time in his letters that there should be a limitation on the number of terms is that on one occasion, in one of his letters, written during the administration of George Washington, he stated, in effect, that the President then · serving shou1d not be subject to the two-term limitation because of the fact that he had merits arid was an able man. I think that very observation weakens many of the statements Mr. Jefferson might have made in opposition to perpetuation in office, as he calls it.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. President, will the Senator yi.eld? ·

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. I should like to make a further observation with respect to Jefferson. Jefferson took the position, long before he was President of the United States, that the President · should serve only one term.

Mr. HILL. That · is correct.

Mr. LUCAS. He argued that question back and forth and broadcast his views to all parts of the country through letters; but he had no qualms about seeking reelection for a s · second term. He told the country that the people and the party were demanding that he accept a second term. That is history. That is exactly what Thomas Jefferson did. He went on to say, in his · letter to Taylor, which the Senator has already read, that in a great emergency he would even take a third term.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct.

Mr. President, I wonder if I might call the .attention of the Senate at this timeto a statement of the di _ distinguished grandfather of the distinguished junior Senator fr.om · Massachusetts [Mr. LODGE], the hite Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., in which he said:

I have no fear that they - [the American people] can be fully trusted with the power to say whether or not a man shall serve a second term or a third term.

The pending joint resolution, which seems to be so strongly ·· supported by Senators on the other side of the aisle, Members of the Republican Party, found no such support by Republicans in past days. In 1880, 306 delegates to the Chicago Republican Convention held out for 36 ballots for the · nomination of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who was running for a third term. The roll was called 36 times, and on each and every · one _ of those 36 roll calls the faithful Old Guard of Republicans held out for a third-term nomination for General Grant. As we know, of course, it was only when General Garfield was brought forward as a compromise candidate that the convention was able to make a nomination, and it nominated General Garfield. :

In 1912, 4,206,020 Republicans voted for Theodore Roosevelt for a third term. Theodore Roosevelt received 88 . electoral votes. Only 3 , 483,9 ' 22 Republicans voted for President Taft, and President Taft received only 8 electoral votes. So the ­ majority of Republicans voting in the election in 1912 felt that the situation was such that a former President should " be put back in office for a third term. They felt, in spite of what their feelings might be about two terms or any other limitation on the Presidency, that the situation at that time warranted them in voting to put Theodore Roosevelt back ­ into the Presidency for a third term.

The Senator from Illinois has referred to the politics of this situation . We might as well be frank. We know that there are some who still hate and fear Franklin D. Roosevelt. There are some who would like to slap at the ghost of Franklin - D . Roosevelt.

There are legitimate reasons why one might support this resolution; b1 : surely there are some who ' would support it in an effort to repudiate the memory, the work, and the immortal services of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

History shows that in the 85 - years since the War Between the Sta,tes, only one Republican · President has been elected for two full terms. That President, of course, was Gen. · Ulysses S. Grant. No other Republican President has ever been able to serve two full terms in all that 85 years of time. Perhaps it is feared that the Democratic Party, the party of Jefferson, of Jackson, of Wilson, of Roosevelt, may suddenly bring forth another great giant among men, · and that the American people, if they have the right to do so, may wish to continue him in office for more than the customary two terms. The . people may feel that it is to the best interests of the country, and that it is the better part of wisdom, to keep so great a President in the Presidential office.

As I said a few minutes ago, the whole tenor of our Government has been toward a greater degree of democracy and placing more power in the hands of the people. There is not an action which we have taken in the amendment of our fundamental law, the Constitution, which was in any way a negation of representative . democracy.

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

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

· Mr. BALDWIN. I take it that there have been few men in the history of the United States who have believed more strongly in the rule of the people than did Andrew Jackson. Is that correct? · Mr. HILL. Yes; and I know what th~ Senator is about to say. He is about to say that Andrew Jackson, in his first and second messages to Congress, recommended that the Presidency be limited to one term, and then took a second term himself, and that he . proceeded to name his successor. No man in the history of our country ever named his successor as completely as did Andrew Jackson in naming Martin Van Buren.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to permit me to read from those two messages?

Mr. HILL. If the Senator wishes to read them into the RECORD I am glad to have him do so. I hope the Senator will put some "punch" into it.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President, this quotation comes from President Jackson's message in which he was discussing the change in the Con . Constitution with reference to the electoral college, which he recommended. He then went on to say-and I shall try to imitate the vehemence of that great cftizen:

In connection with such an amendment it would seem advisable to limit the service of the Chief Magistrate to a single term of either 4 to 6 years.

In his second annual message to Congress, in December, 1830, he said this:

I cannot too earnestly invite your attention to the propriety of promoting such an amendment of the Constitution as will render him ineligible after one term of service.

That is what . he believed.

Mr. HILL. No one admires Andrew Jackson more than I do. He has been one of my great heroes, one of the great . figures not only of our country but of all the world. But Andrew . Jackson did what we sometimes see even in this body; . dy; he talked one way and later acted . another way. because h~ declared himself to be in favor of one term and then accepted a second term.

Mr. BALDWIN. I did not suppose a Democrat ever did that.

Mr. HILL. Oh, yes. I will say to the Senator that I realize I am divulging a great secret, but once in a while a Democrat might do that for the reason that men change their minds. I have found that the greater a man is the more likely he is to change · his mind; certainly the more ready he is to change his mind. I recall that on one occasion a friend of Abraham Lincoln rather chided him for changing his mind, but Mr. Lincoln's horse-sense reply was, "It is an exceedingly dumb man who doesn't have more sense today than he had yesterday."

After Andrew Jackson had been in office as President of the United States, he had the experience and the knowledge which came from serving in that office. He was a wiser man when he accepted a second term than he was when he declared against a - second term. Mr. President, will the Senator yield · further to me?

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend, the Senator from Conn - Connecticut.

Mr. BALDWIN. · Does it not seem, then, that a man who makes a statement that he will serve only ' one term or only two terms, and then changes · ges his mind, brings about a situation which ought not to be permitted to exist? It is along that route, it seems to me, that dictatorships move. That is why, Mr. President, I believe that now is the time, in the calmness of this hour, that we should submit this question to the people, to let them decide it, as the joint resolution proposes tion. to let them do, in the conventions which would be set up under its provisions.

Mr. "HILL. Mr. President, what is it that the Poet said about consistency and are: little minds going together? Perhaps my distinguished friend, the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FuLBRIGHT], who is a graduate of Oxford, could give us the exact words. There is no question that the smaller the man, the smaller the mind, the more routine and consistent and rigid he is in his conduct and his views. It is the man of · great mind and intellect, of great comprehension, and a genius for large affairs, a man such as Abraham Lincoln, who realizes that he has more sense today than he had yesterday, and who makes today's decision on the basis of his knowledge, experience, and intelligence of today, not on the basis of a decision which he made at some prior time.

Mr. President, as I was saying, a majority of the Republicans of 1912 voted for . Theodore Roosevelt for a third term. In that connection it is interesting to note the votes cast for Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1940, 27,243,466 Americans voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt to continue in office for a third term. 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. Mr. Roosevelt received 449 electoral votes, while Mr. Willkie received only 82 electoral votes. Mr. R - Roosevelt carried 38 of the 48 States.

_ In 1944 the question was not a third te r m, 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 United States, when he was running for election for -a fourth term·.

In view of the votes for Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 and in view of the votes for Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940 and 1944, Mr. President, is it surprising that today there is no demand from the people for the adoption of the constitutional amendment proposed by the joint resolution? The Senator from Illinois said he had r · received only eight letters about such a constitutional amendment. I can say that I have received no letter, no telegram, no telephone call, not one word from anyone, about such a constitutional amendment. If there be any real support among the people for such a constitutional amendment, it is so small that not even one person has been able to get himself a job as a lobbyist to come before the Congress and try to hav@'it pass the joint resolution proposing such a constitutional amendment. So far as I know, there is no call, no demand, no request on the part of anyone for the passage of the joint resolution and the adoption of such an amendment to the Constitution. people realize that they are sovereign in this country. The first words in the Constitution of the United States We the people of the United States • • • do hereby ordain and establish - this Constitution for the United States of America.

The people are the residuaries of all power.

· They are not here today asking us to take a way from them some of their power. The limitations provided by the Constitution are not limitations on the people, but they are limitations which the people placed on the Congress, on the Chief Executive, and on the judiciary. The Constitution provides that the Congress shall not pass an ex post facto · law or a law prohibiting freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. The inhibitions provided by the Constitution, Mr. President, are upon the Congress and the Chief Executive and the judiciary , but not upon the people. As I said earlier in my remarks, all the steps that have been taken in . the development of our Government have been in · the direction of more democracy, more power · iR the hands of the people, and a greater exercise of such power. In fact, we know that the Constitution could not be ratified by the people until the first 10 amendments were agreed upon, and those 10 amendments were written into the Constitution in order . to absolutely protect and safeguard the people in t h eir great fundamental, in­ dividual rights.

Other amendments subsequently were . made a part of the Constitution. One is the amendment providing for the direct election of Senators, so that those who sit in this body must hold . their commissions directly from the people themselves, and the qualifications and fitness of those who hold seats in this body must be passed upon by the people when they go to the ballot boxes in their re spective States.

Another amendment to t he · Constitution is the one providing for woman's s uffrage . That amendment gives to a great· body of our people, the women, the right to vote, the right to take part in elections, the ri gh t to have their say as to who shall be President of the United S tates , who shall sit in the Senate, who shall sit in the House of Representatives, who shall represent them, who shall pass their laws for them.

Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. President," will the Senator yield to me? ·

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend, the Senator from Connect i cut.

Mr. BALDWIN. I should like to make this inquiry: Does not the Co nstit ution of the State of Alabama provide that the Governor of that State can serve for o n ly one term, and c ann ot succeed hims elf ?

Mr. HILL. The Con stituti on of Alabama p rov ides that the Governor of Alabama may serve as many terms as he can be elect ed to but that he may not be his own immediate successor. But let me say to the S enat or from Connect i cut, as I" said a short time ago to the Senato.r from Louisiana · , that I can see no analo gy whatever, today, between the office of governor of a State and the office of Pres iden t of the United States. I elucidated a little earlier what I thought about that. I suppose the Senator was called off the floor on some important matter . The duties, respon sibilitie s, and problems and burdens of the President of the United S tates , his importance to the people of the United S tat es, his impor tanc e to the people of all the world, cannot be compared with those of the governor of a State.

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

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

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. BALDWIN. I am under the impression that a good many of the States in recent years have adopted that sort of an amendment to their constitutions. It did not used to be so. I am sorry I did not hear what the learned Senator said as to the reason why the people of Alabama adopted that kind of an amendment.

Mr. HILL. I have no objection to the State provision, just as I said to the Senator I have no objection to the custom, ordinarily of a. man not holding the of- · tke of President for more than two terms. The fact is that as to a number of Presidents I am very glad indeed they served · but one term.

Mr. BALDWIN. I share the Senator's view in that regard.

Mr. HILL. I do not care to make a political speech about this matter at this time, but, oh, I have lived through days under some Presidents when I was most thankful that the American people, exercising their sovereign rights, sent them back home. away from the White House.

Mr. BALDWIN. Will the Senator yield to one more question?

Mr. HILL. Certainly I yield to the Senator.

Mr. BALDWIN. It seems strange to me that my friend on the other side of the aisle should be quoting as his authority prominent Republicans, · and I should be quoting · as authority for my s id e the arguments of prominent D em o­ c rat s. But there is one more Democrat whose views I should like to get into the record. He, too. I believe, was a man in whom the people had great confidence, and who in turn looked to the people for his guidance and had great faith in their wisdom and judgment. I refer to Grover Cleveland. In a letter accepting the nomination for the Presidency in 1884, he said:

And of the means to this end not one would, In my judgment, be more effective than an amendment of the Consti t ut i on diS• qualifying the Pres i dent from reelection. Of course, Mr. Cleveland served two terms, but they were not consecutive. So he was very consistent in what he himself said and did.

Mr. HILL. Some historians tell us that Mr. Cleveland was not altogether, shall I say, unhappy over the thought that he might be called, or drafted, for a third term. Certainly . he lost no sleep over that report, I will say to the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. BALDWIN. I think that is the po i nt that should be made. that these men, even though they put themselves on record as in favor of only one term, or two terms, yet when the time comes and the opportunity ~o continue themselves in office and in power is presented, they always yield. That is what this amendment to the Constitution would prevent.

Mr. HILL. The record shows that the people, in their wisdom and in the soundness of their judgment, did not under ordinary circumstances give a man a third term. Only one man in the whole history of the United States had a third term. I am not sure whether the Senator was on the floor or not, but I stated that of all the 33 Presidents, only 8 had had 2 full consecutive terms. As I said, only one Republican President has had two full terms in all the 85 years since the War Between . the States.

Mr. BALDWIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. BALDWIN. Of course, on the basis of that argument, I should be against the amendment, with the hope that a Republican might some time have the opportunity. I ain willing to prevent

Mr. HILL. The Senator has many charming characteristics, and certainly one of them is his boundless optimism. (Laughter.] If the Senator is about to leave the floor I hope he will not do so at this · time. The Senator knows, as well as I know, that if in 1912 and 1916 and 1932, whenever we had a Presidential election, the Republican Party had nominated a man for a third term, as a good Republican the Senator would have been campaigning to the limit of his ability to elect that Republican for a third term.

Mr. BALDWIN. Again I say, that is the ve r y vice of the whole system. . em. That should not be pos sib le . .

I am sorry the Senator has asked me not . to leave the floor, because I have a meeting with a delegation I must attend. I should like nothing better than to rem main and listen to the Senator.

Mr. ffiLL. M y distinguished friend sheds such an aura of optimism around th is Chamber th at I . really like to have him here, but I .well und e rstand the situation which compels him to leave, and I want him to know it has been a pleasure to yield to him.

Mr. BALDWIN. I thank the S enato r.

Mr. LUCAS. . Mr. P reside nt, will the S enat or from Alabama yield?

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

Mr. L U C A S. What is d iffi cult for me to understand, in weighing the arguments of the proponents of the amendment, i s this: Everyone knows that if the amendment is ratified it will be an absolu te limitation upon the sovereign rights of the people. In my early days in grade school and in high school I studied civics and history. 1 have always understood that ou rs is a government of the people, and ' t hat the people have the r ig ht to make a choice of a man for President of the United States, and that it is the only government in the world where the peop le have such a right. Now a proposal is made to amend the . Constit uti on by inserting a limitation of the k i nd proposed, taking away that right from the people of the United S ta tes. It is in violation of a fundamental principle of human rights. . I cons ide r the proposal dangerous to our liberties.

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. I think he had to le ave the floor · for a few moments, but I called attention to the fact that the very first words in the Cons titution are "We the people.'' All the r ights , all the powers, belong to us, the people, except and save as we may delegate them to government, either to the Federal Government, to the S t ates, or to some local government.

As I said also, _ all the limitations in the Constitution are on the Congress to protect the people, they are on the Chief Executive to protect the people, they are on the judiciary to protect the people. There are no 1imitations in the Constitution on the people. Now it is proposed that a limitation be put on the people, an iron prohibition to strike at the very cornerstone of democracy, the cornerstone of the rule of the people, which is the ballot box.

Mr. LUCAS. The Senator is absolutely correct, if , he wil1 pardon a further interruption-and I shalf not concern myself much longer with 'the question in the Senator's time. It has seemed to me very strange when in the last few years I have heard, times without number. the argument made by those on the other side of the aisle that this · administration was continuously whittling away the rights of the _ people, that we were constantly encroaching upon State govern~ ments, and upon the individual rights of the ci ti zens of this country, to such a po i nt th a t unle s s they removed the Democ r atic a d m i nistra t ion from office in Wa s hi ngt on there would be a dic tat o r ship. T hey c h arged o v er and over t h at the a d m ini s trati on w as gradu a lly t a king a wa y th e s o v ere i g n r ig h ts of the peo pl e. Mr. President, th e pr o p o sa l b ef o r e us is t he rea l beginning o f t he takin g a wa y of the basic, sov ereig n right s o f he t Ame r ican people , b ecaus e t h e ri gh t of f ran c hise i s the m o s t sa c r ed r ight exist - in g i n thi s c ountr y today . This i s o n e of t he few place s e l ft in the w o rld, as I s aid a moment ag o , wh e re people c an e xercise thei r f re e · c h o i ce. O urs i s s t ill the people's g o vernment, a n d u nder n o c i r cumstances s h o uld the y be deprive d of their right t o p ass, b y a straight - out vo t e at a n ati o na l el ecti on , on wh o sha ll be Presid ent, ju s t as w a s done in 1 94 0 a nd 1 944.

T he S enat o r re me mbers th a t in 19 4 0 b illboards all ov e r h t e Un ited S tates c ar ­ ried a p i cture of U n c l e S a m w it h h i s t h u mbs do w n on th e t h i r d te r m. It wa s a bi g i ssu e in t ha t election , and the p e o­ p l e m ad e a choice, a n d I th i n k t h ey shou l d h av e a ig r ht to do it a gai n in the event c i rcum s t an ces like those in previous elec tio ns a ris e ag ai n.

Mr. H I LL. The S e nator is exactly co rre ct in every t h in g he has s ai d, and I want him to take note of t h e fact that the fi r st p i ece of legislation the Republic a n House of Representatives passes is · the joint resolu t ion proposing this consti t utional amendment.

The first piece of legislation of any consequence that the Republican majority brings before the Senate--! am not ready to conc e de it will be passed, but the first piece of legisla t ion of any consequence that the Republicans bring in when they obtain cont r ol of the S e n a te is a proposal by way of a constitutional amendment to try to take fundamental rights away from the people .

Mr. President, I was saying that the whole trend of Government in the Uni t ed S t ates was for more democracy, more power in the people, and I had referred to the woman's suffrage amendment and the d i rect elec t ion of Senators. Then, of cou r se, there was the so-called lame duck amendment to . bring the Con g ress closer to the people, ' to make the Congress more responsive to the will ' of the people , to m a ke the Congress more directly representative of the wishes of the peop l e. The whole course of our Government from the very beginning down to date has been toward more democracy, the e n joyment and exercise of greater r i ghts by the people, the enjoyment and exercise of more power by the people. While we h a ve advanced toward more democr a cy, while we have advanced for a greater rule by the people, we have found other nations throughout the world turning toward totalitarianism, toward autocratic rule. Today democracy in m a ny countries is only a memory, and in its stead stands the denial of the rights of the people · , the concentration of power in the hands of autocratic and ru t hless leaders.

The pending proposed constitutional amendment would be a backward step; it would be retrogression; it would be traveling down the road of reaction; . it .

would be a denial of democracy itself. It has been our proud boast for 170 years that the people of the United S t ates are sovereign. L e t us reject t h is p r opo s ed amendment and m ak e sure th a t the peop l e shall con t inue to b e sove r e ig n, that our Gov ernm ent s h a ll co nti nue to b e n i t r u t h a G o v e r nment o f t he pe ople, by t he p eople, an d for th e peopl e.

M r. P residen t , I a sk u nanimo us conse n t t o hav e p rinte d in t he RECOR D at th i s p oi nt so m e r emarks which . I pre p a r ed t h e d ay after t he death of the l at e F ran k li n D . Roose ve lt .

T her e b eing n o o bjecti on, t h e s ta - tem ent was or dered to be p rinte d in the RECOR D , a s f o llows :

F RANK L I N D. R O O S EVEL T

We g a the r t o d a y in t h e s h a dow of a g r ea t s or r ow . N o t s inee A braham L incoln f e ll h as this N at i o n s uffered suc h a t ragedy . F ranl{ ­ lin R o os e v elt wa s the for em o st man of Am e r­ ic a . He wa s th e fore m o s t m an o f a ll th is wo rld. Hi s deat h is a lo s s to t he N at ion an d to the w orl d so g r eat t hat no o n e t oday can know just ho w ir repa r abl e it i s . H e , m or e thM:l any o t h e r m a n, held th e ho p es of the wo r ld .

W h o can . fo . get tho s e d a rk d ay s of the d e pr e s s ion w h e n men with q uest io n ing e y es, d e e p in d i s t r es s , w a lk e d the s t ree t s or tramped the hi g h w a y s , se ar ch ing for the jobs that w e re not to be found-when those who had held the political and economic power of the l a nd an d who had di r ec t ed i t s business and sh ap ed and controlled i t s Government knew not w h at to do and liter all y g a ve- up the ghost. Bank s had gone down, hundre d s of them, like au t umn lea v es before winter's wind, a n d the Nation hung on the brink of economic chaos and financ ia l ru i n.

Who can forget that g all a nt, brave spirit, wi t h his smile of cour a ge and his words of hope, a s he took over the P r esidency of our country a nd decl a red that we had nothing to fear but fe a r t i self. He promis e d ac t ion, and he g a ve us ac t ion. He did the need f ul and the darin g. He met the g r e a t crisis. He restored t he confi-dence of t he people.

Under his inspiring lea d ership America again knew her greatness and felt her power. Because of the fundament a l justice of his program business and industry and labor .and agricul t ure b eg an the long climb back to stren g th and s t ability, and the Nation w a s saved.

H i s program gave us the streng t h and the power wi t h which we wa g e victorious warfa r e tod a y. As our Armies r a ce to B e rlin , as our Navy and Air Force sweep the Pac i fic, we know the contribution that F ra n k lin Roo s e­ velt made to the victory th at he did not live to see but that aw a its us. For he was a leader possessed with genius for large affairs and the imagination and capacity for great and world -en com passing dec i s i ons.

Under his leadership the Nation's resources, human and m a ter i al , have been mobilized e d and its stren g th and productive capacity have been marshaled in a way that has astound e d not only the world but ourselves as well. We have done the things that men counted impossible . We have brought the full power of the Nation's might against our enemies while giving untold aid and strength to the British, the Russians, and the Chinese. We have crossed the seven seas, saved the · freedom of our people, beaten Hitler's master race, and made impossible the dreams of the Japanese war lords .

When Franklin Roosevelt gathered at the table of giants, with Churchill, Stalin, and Chi a ng Kai-shek, he stood forth as a leader of the giants, who knew them and understood them and commanded their confidence and their admiration.

With Churchill, he gave us the Atlantic Charter, f\nd it was he who proclaimed the "four freedoms." He gave to us and our western world the good-n~ighbor policy wh i ch has grown surer and stronger through the years , brought 21 n a t i ons of this W es t er n World, with one ex c ept i on onl y , to s ta nd s i de . by side in the present w a r, and found its s ple nd i d frui t ion in the · M exi co City Conf eren c e .

A t M o scow , Te heran, C ai ro , D umbart on O aks, an d Y a lta , F ran klin R o o se v e lt _ ga ve l eadership a nd d i r e c tion to t h e c o u rs e tha t l ed t h e Uni t ed St at es, Grea t B r i t ain , R us s ia, an d C hi n a to l a y t h e fo un d atio n s t o nes for an i nter n ati on a l or ganizati on for t he pe a ce o f the w o r ld. As w e lo ok t o the fi na l e re c­ t i on a t S a n Fr a nci s co of t h e e di fi c e of su c h a n o rganizati on for pea ce i nt o w hic h m u st go so m uc h of h is h andiwor k , w e ~~ o w t ha t, like Mose s of old , he was pe rm itte d to l o o k do w n u p o n the p r om ise d l and b u t not to e nte r nt i o i t .

To da y he wa s to jo i n w it h h is fe llow count r y men in paying t r ibut e to Tho ma s J effe r­ son. He fou gh t the b att le th a t J effers on fo ug h t ; he fo ug ht fo r t h e fu n d a ment al s t ha t J effe rson g a v e us. He fou ght for hum a n r ight s, huma n p r o gress , and huma n welfar e. He fo ugh t ha t t the pe o p le m igh t en t er i nt o thei r in h erit ance a n d th a t e ve ry m a n an d woma n in the R e p u b li c migh t · have a st ak e in govern me n t . He fou g h t th a t d e moc rac y m ig ht be r ea l in t h is land and that th o se w ho in ha bit it m i ght enjoy its fruits . H e fo ugh t for a be t ter -and f ai rer op p or t u ni ty for a ll the people and that a new li g ht m ig ht s hine in their fac e s-the light of ho p e , of pe a ce , and of s e curity .

And now he s t ands with W a shi m; ton , with Je ff e rs on, with Lincoln, with Wilson . Pie has joined t h e choice and master spirits of all the a g es.

Mr. Presi d ent, I loved Franklin Roosevelt liv i ng and I love him now. He is not de a d. Is W a shing t on dead? ? Is Je ff erson dead? Is Lincoln de a d? Fr a nklin Roosevelt will never die. The influence of h i s life and work, of all th a t he did and of all that he stood for will grow with the pr o gressing years. H i ~ spir i t will lift the hearts and pu r poses of men, move and in sp i r e .th e m to noble endeavor and g r eat wo r ks , and light the pa t h­ w a y for humanity down the centuries. . Mr. O ' O’CONOR. Mr. President, I have listened with the greatest interest to the discu s sion by the able senior Senator from Alabama, and while I cannot agree with h i s conclusions, I must compliment him h i ghly upon the earnes t ness of his presentation, and par t icularly upon the depth of his research.

In approaching the consideration · of provisions of the pending joint resolution one is given pause by the realiz a tion that never before in the history of the Union has any constitutional limitat i on been imposed upon Presidential tenure. Yet it cannot be stated that a propo s al of this general nature is something novel. As an indication of the fact that it has been a recurring question, it m i ght be noted that there have .been 140 proposals in the Ccngress regarding the imposition of a limitation on Presidential tenure. While the S e nate should not be diverted from a reasoned and sound course of action, merely because the Constitution has endured without such an amendment, this very fact should suggest the advisability of considering the proposal enti r ely as an abstract one, upon its merits. It would seem preferable to avoid unnecessary references to a single case in which the two-term custom was not followed - wed lest the fundamental question might be lost sight of in the collateral, even perhaps personal, references to the . particular case. In this connection I wish to say that I recall that the able Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. WILEY] expressed such a sentiment a few days ago, a sentiment in which I heartily concur.

Limiting the consideration to what is best for the Nation, I favor passage of the joint resolution. ·

The primary purpose of this proposal is to allow the people of the Nation to decide for themselves whether they desire to have such a constitutional limitation. It would seem reasonable and proper that a proposal which has been recurring through the decades and has aroused such extended discussion and _ debate should be oresented for decision by the people, who are entitled to have the Constitution conform to their wishes. Nor should the Congress be deterred from taking such action by the contention that the Constitution is sacrosanct. The Constitution has been amended before, and doubtless will be amended again. As is, of course, known to everyone, the Constitution provides, by its terms, how it should be amended, thus indicating that even its framers recognized that developments in regard to the Nation's progress and economy might well - warrant some modification.

In seeking now to provide a formal procedure . for establishment of constitutional safeguards against long contin- uance in the Presidency, we are acting in accord with the thinking of the authors of the Constitution; otherwise, why the many safeguards which these men insisted upon? Why the early adoption of checks and balances to offset the accumulation of power in any branch of Government? Why the power of impeachment, of veto, of overriding a veto, of referendum, and repeal? Why the passage by the First Congress of the Bill of Rights? Why the insistence upon State rights?

And to whom was it given to maintain these defenses against unintended powers? It was given to Congress because this body had an ever-changing personnel and was beholden most intimately to the people. The authors of ~he Constitution, many of whom were members of the early branches of Government, were not so presumptuous as to suppose they Jlad acted infallibly. As early as 1800- the fourth Presidential election-they discovered that they had made a serious mistake-one for which Alexander Hamilton paid with his life.

I refer to the original method of electing the President and the Vice President on the same ballot. It will be recalled that, either by coincidence or connivance, Aaron Burr-a Vice Presidential candidate-turned up in a tie vote for the Presidency with Thomas Jefferson. What did the Congress do about this error? It rectified it with just the sort of legislation we are considering today. The twelfth amendment shut the door minds. forever on the possibility that a schemer could enter the Presidency by the back door.

Particularly as a representative of the people of Maryland do I believe it is consistent for me to support the pending proposal. At this very time in our State a similar proposed constitutional amendment is being readied for submission to the voters to limit the tenure of the governor of the State to two terms.

It may not be amiss to observe that this amendment to the State constitution was originated at the Democratic State convention held last July in Baltimore and also was included in the State platform to which we subscribed in our candidacies in the November elections. The people elected the State-wide Democratic ticket upon such a platform, and within the past month the proposed constitutional amendment has been passed by both houses of the General Assembly of Maryland and will be submitted at the next general election. I might say parenthetically that it has not been a - party matter in Maryland, because the mem- bers of both parties have supported it, as is indicated bY the fact that in the Maryland House of Delegates, composed of 123 members, representatives, of course, of both parties, there was a unanimous vote in favor of submitting the question to the people.

Not only does this occur to me as justification for the position I am taking but, referring to the situation in the State of Maryland, it will be most interesting to have the people take definite action and, after considering all phases of the questions, express their decision regarding the tenure of the Chief Executives both of the State and of the Nation.

Apropos of some references made during the very splendid address of the able Senator from Alabama, it came to my mind that today 18 States of the Union have in their constitutions limitations upon the terms of their chief ex . executives. Reverting to the question of the abstract principle involved, many considerations suggest themselves as supporting some restriction upon the occupancy of the office of Chief Executive of the Nation, as has been indicated here both by the questions and by the answers. No one was more definite, or more insistent, as to the danger of too long a service in the Presidency than was Thomas Jefferson.

Time and again did Andrew Jackson declare himself for a limitation of the service of the Chief Magistrate. Of the same mind was President Polk. James Buchanan proclaimed his belief that the example of Washington and his successors had determined that no President should be more than once reelected. And likewise as has been indicated here today, President Cleveland and other Chief Executives.

Mr. President, in my humble opinion, another consideration-and an important one-suggests itself. By that I refer to the need for keeping our governmental processes as close as possible to the people and to guard against any step which might tend to establish autocratic rule in our land. The example of the totalitarian countries is fresh in our With much force it can be argued, as was indicated by one of the questions of the able Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SALTONSTALL] that the world of today is a different world than that in which the framers of our Constitution lived. There are ideologies of government rampant in the world today which are actively and unceasingly opposed to democracy as we know it. They would deny all those rights of the individual which we consider our priceless heritage. They would vest, and actually do vest in a great part of the world today, supreme power in a detached government-an autocratic power over every phase of the daily life of its citizens. So thoroughly have these alien doctrines of government been established in a vast portion of the world, and so widely have their proponents been able to spread their poison- ous ideas, that today America almost alone of all the world powers stands as the true exemplar and exponent of democratic ideals as written into our Constitution by the founding fathers.

With such doctrines of government abroad, and with the minds of many, even in this country, saturated with ideas incompatible with democracy, there is danger, real danger, that in the days ahead some self -seeking leader may gain . the Presidency and make -use of the powers and privileges of that office to entrench himself therein.

We are living in a world of sudden- ness, and we have recognized this. We have delegated more and more authority into the hands of the President. This is well and good, but it calls for precautionary measures. Since there is less and less limit upon the powers of a Chief Magistrate, it is proper-it is wise-that there be more limits upon his tenure.

It would appear, therefore, that the · resolution now before us, and likewise the amendment offered in the commit- tee, providing that the voice of the States be expressed through conventions called for the purpose, are worthy of support. I believe that a convention specially called to consider this matter, with all the attendant publicity and special interest focused thereby upon the matter will serve to bring . forth an expression' of public opinion that will represent to the fullest the wishes of all the people of all the States.

The point has been raised that in the event of a great national emergency, perhaps another _ war, it might be vital to America's security to retain a Chief Executive in office for a third term or longer.

When the time comes that there is no other man available among our 140,000,- 000 Americans who can adequately provide the required national leadership, no matter what the emergency, then America indeed will be in danger of destruction or dictatorship. Never, since the first volley on Bunker Hill, has America been without the leadership necessary to bring it through any crisis. The only way to encourage and to guarantee continuance of such leader- ship is to take action to eliminate influences that would stifle the development of leaders in our political life.

Certainly nothing could act more definitely to halt or impede development of potential leadership in city, State, or Nation than to permit any one man or any one party to persuade the people that he or they alone are competent and therefore must be perpetuated in office. To conclude, let it be said that, in accordance with American tradition and American doctrine, the citizenry ought to be afforded the opportunity of decid- ing for themselves whether this limitation is to be imposed and respectfully I urge that they be given such an opportunity through the adoption of this resolution.

We have an opportunity on this measure to set up a safeguard that will certainly help to prolong the life of democracy in America.