March 7, 1947 (2)

For this reason, Mr. President, I shall vote against the Senate amendments providing for rat i fication by conventions. If the joint resolution shall be presented in the form as it passed th . e House, then I shall be inclined to favor it. But I know that the process of rat i ficatioil through action of the State legislatures affords the best opportunity for getting the correct sentiment bf the people, because legislators are elec te d, whereas i n many States delega te s to conventions are appointed and the question is not made an issue and debated before the citizenship and the electorate, before the votes · are cast.

Mr. President, I shall not vote for the committee amendments providing for conventions, and I trust they will be rejected. I wanted to make this explanation of my views regarding the Senate committee amendments before any vote was taken.

I · shall not · vote for the committee amendments, and I trust that they . will be defeated. I wanted to make that explanation of my views regarding the Senate amendments before any vote was taken on them.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, in regard to the pending · amendment which proposes to strike out "the legislatures of three-fourths of the . several States." and insert the words "conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution," I desire to state · that in · committee, as I recall the change was brought about largely due to the insistence of some of the Democratic Members, and I believe I am · stating their argument correctly when I say they felt that conventions to consider and act on proposed . constitutional amendments were · nearer to the people. I could not agree with that, but their contention · was that if under the Cons . Constitution conventions were held, representatives to the conventions would be elected on the specific issue. That was their position.

I personally stated in my opening - argument on the floor, as I now repeat that I held to the opposite position, but I went along with the committee because in my opinion in order to accomplish results in considering proposed legislation there must be give and take. That is the situation as it appears -to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and I repeat that it was largely due to the insistence of the Democratic Members that this lan g uage was inserted.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. REVERCOMB. I join the able chairman of the Judiciary Committee in the .statement that there was some disagree me nt in the committee. As a matter of fact, I was one of those who thought that perhaps the best method of passing on the proposed amendment was through action by the S t ate legislatures. · However, after some discussion it was generally agreed to submit the amendment in the form in which it now appears.

The question was addressed to me, which I now want to address to ' the chairman of the Committee on the J"Udic ciary, whether or not it is incumbent upon the Senate to set up the machinery for holding conventions, or whether that must be left to the separate States; that is, in allocating the number of d elegate s to a convention, and prescribing how the convention shall be held. I would like an answer on that question while the pending amendment is before us.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President in seeking an . answer - to that question: I turned to the Constitution itself to see if there were any . annotations in relation to it. I could find none. It seems to me that the machinery of the several States would go into operation without further direction from the Congress. In other words, power is conferred on the States to organ i ze · conventions.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, wHI the Senator yield?

Mr. WILEY. I am very happy to yield.

Mr. · BARKLEY . The only instance within my recollection in which conventions were provided for was on the submission of the repeal of the · eighteenth amendment. I would have to refresh my recollection, but as I recall it . the whole matter of providing machinery for conventions was left to the State legislatures . .

Mr. WILEY. That is correct.

Mr. BARKLEY. The Senate did not undertake to write out a blueprint of how the States should select their delegates. As a rule, there are no provisions in State statutes for the calling of such conventions. My recollection is that in case the State did not have such machinery, the legislature had to enact a · law providing for the calling of a convention , - the determination of -representation, and so forth. It also had to pay the expense of the election and of the convention.

· Mr. WILEY. That is my understand­

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield. ,

Mr. REVERCOMB. Following the remarks of the Senator from Kentucky, is it not a fact that in some · instances the State legislatures resolved themselves into conventions, sitting as conventions, even though they were regularly elected members of the legislatures? Can the Senator from Kentucky advise me upon that point? . I have heard it raised.

Mr. BARKLEY. I would not be able to answer that question without further . inquiry. It would be possible, I have no doubt, for the legislature to provide for a convention made up of its own members; and while it was sitting as a convention, it would not be acting as a legislature. That is a sort of fiction of legislative process, but jt is not impossible for it to be done in that . way, in my judgment.

Mr. REVERCOMB. It would be within the province of the legislature to determine the method to be followed.

Mr. BARKLEY. Yes, absolutely; because I recall only . one case in which the Congress attempted to set up the machinery within the State and to . prescribe the method by which the convention of the State should be called.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I think - the Senator from Kentucky has confirmed my own conclusion, which is, that held. when the Constitution was written, using this language, no power was taken away from the States with respect to regulating how, when, and where the conventions should be held. Rather, the States had in l erent power or derived therefrom the Constitution to hold conventionS. If the Congress, on the other hand, had decided to set up machinery pursuant to the Constitution, then I think that would be guiding; at least, it would determine the direction that the States should take. But my recollection from a cursory review of the subject is the same as that of the Senator from Kentucky, that the States themselves, either pursuant to a legislative enactment already on the books, or pursuant to legislative action that followed the proposed amendment, would take action prescribing how the conventions were to be held. I conclude with that . statement.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Of course, the action of the committee, changing the method · of ratification from the State legislature.:; to conventions, held under the Constitution, is only a quasi modificatio ... 1 of the original proposal, because, as the Senator from Kentucky has well said, in order to hold a convention under the Constitution, while the State legislature has to act, it can act in one of two ways: It can convert itself into a State com · convention for this purpose and sit as such, or it can provide that · on a date certain, a special election shall be held at which delegates shall be elected to a St&te convention.

In my own State when it came to the repeal of the eighteenth amendment, the legislature acted and provided that on a day certain there should be a convention p~ld for the purpose of repealing the eighteenth amendment, and it set up the machinery whereby the delegates were to be elected, and required them to state their position on filing, whether in favor of repealing or in favor of retaining the amendment. In 1933, I myself was a delegate in my own State.

In my judgment, the committee amendment represents only a half-way modification. Suppose a State legislature not to be in favor of this proposal; then all it would need to do would be to fail to set up the machinery for a con­ _ vention.

What the chairman of the committee said of the Democratic members is true; we did feel that if this proposed amendment were to be submitted to the people it should be submitted directly to them, and that, if the State legislatures - were to follow out the procedure under the Constitution, there would be really a demo~ ~ democratic plebiscite, showing whether or not the people wanted the Constitution amended in the manner proposed. As a matter of fact, it offers both systerns, because the State legislatures can act as members of the conventions. It depends on the State. It would not violate State rights. We thought it a good amendment.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, there pure democracy. seems to be no disagreement in relation to the appropriate answer to the question of the Senator from West Virginia, and that is that the power is in the States to determine how conventions shall be Mr. McCLELLAN. Mr. President, will the Senator · yield?

Mr. WILEY. Yes; I yield.

Mr. McCLELLAN. I merely want to make an observation in reply to the Senator from Washington. He says that the legislature can act, and that if the legislature failed to act there would never be an expression of sentiment on the proposed amendment. The legislature in my State is elected every 2 years, and I presume the same practice prevails in most of the other States. If the legislature does not act the first time the question is presented to it the people can elect a legislature which will act, if the people want action taken. The States do not have to act on the question at all. - They do not have to call conventions. They do not have to act either way. Unless the matter is agitated, and the people are concerned about it, and want to vote on it, and want their State to approve or disapprove the constitutional amendment, there is no reason for calling for a convention to be held. The machinery is already in existence by which action can be had. The legislature of a State can act on the question. If one legislature does not act on it, and the people want the legislature to act on it, they can themselves elect other legislators who will act. In my humble judgment, Mr. President, the legislative method is the best method for action to be taken on this question. In that manner we can obtain an intelligent expression of sentiment from the people.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. MAGNUSON. As the Senator from Arkansas well knows, an individual who runs for the State legislature sometimes runs on various planks of a platform. He may be in favor of a road to be built over here, or something to be done over there and, in his campaign, he may only incidentally mention that a constitutional amendment will be before the State legislature for consideration. But State legislatures which really represent the people of their States will submit the specific question to the people, and the people can act on it. We Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary, who are always for pure democracy as we see it, voted for the convention form of action, and I think, of course, it is the best system.

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

M.r. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. BARKLEY. I wonder if those members of the committee who believe in pure democracy and therefore the submission of the proposed constitutional amendment to State conventions would vote for an amendment to the joint resoIution providing for a really pure manifestation of democracy by having the President of the United States elected by popular vote instead of by the electoral college? That would really be a

Mr. REVERCOMB and Mr. LUCAS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, I presume the last question was addressed to

Mr. BARKLEY. It was addressed over the Senator's shoulder to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. WILEY. Then, in the interest of brevity, I shall not attempt to answer it. I gladly yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, to recur to the question at hand, it seems to me that the one conclusion to be drawn from this discussion with respect to the matter of submission to the State legislatures or to State conventions is that the determination finally will rest with the legislature itself. The legislature itself will determine whether it will sit as a convention or whether it will provide for a special convention. I say · that to the able Senator from Arkansas with great respect for his views. The legislature itself will determine whether it shall itself a . act upon the question . or provide for a special convention. If we were to limit the action to a special convention, which I take it we cannot do, and do not so provide by the joint resolution; that would be one thing. But the question is referred . to the legislature of the State, which may resolve itself into a convention and the members of the legislature may act as delegates to the convention, although they are members of the legisla~ure---the same members that the able Senator from Arkansas wants to act upon the question. So I do not think it is very important, Mr. President, whether tt ·. e constitutional amendment be referred to the legislature or referred to a special State convention. If it is re· ferred to a special convention, to be ratified by the convention, the legislature will determine whether it shall act in both capacities, whether the legislature shall resolve itself into a convention, or whether it shall call a special convention. It seems to me that the question is rather unimportant.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. If I may, I should like, in the time of the Senator, to make one observation with respect to the views of the able Senator from West Virginia. Obviously, I am not acquainted with what the West Virginia Legislature might do, but I undertake to say that the Legislature of Illinois would not dare, under the laws of our State, or under the Constitution of the United States, to attempt to sit as a convention on a serious question of this kind under a resolution of this character. In my opinion, . it is mandatory that the legislature call a convention. So much for that.

1 ask this question of the Senator from Wisconsin. The joint resolution, as I understand, was introduced by the Senator from Wisconsin. Am I correct?

Mr. WILEY. The one now pending is a House measure. I believe I did introduce one joint resolution on the subject. I think th er e were a series of resolutions.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Several of them.

Mr. WILEY. This is really a committee joint resolution.

Mr. LUCAS. Whoever introduced the measure originally provided that the con stitutiona l amendment should be ratified by the le gislature s of threel'uurths of the several States.

Mr. WILEY. That is the provision of the House joint resolution.

Mr . LUC A S. That is the measure that came to the Senate Judiciary Committee, as I understand, and at least one measure introduced in the Senate was of the same nature.

Mr. WILEY. I think there were se vera l.

Mr. LUCAS. What I am inquiring about is what was the persuasive force in the comm itte e that caused the Committee on the Judiciary to change from the House version and from the vers i on originally submitted by some Senators.

Mr. WILEY. I thought I had answered that question. I shall be glad to . go over it again. The standing committee to which was referred the various proposals for amendment of the Constitution brought out, I believe, substantially this . amendment. I am not positive whether, when it first came before the committee, it provided that it should be rat i fied by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States. Then what took place was that the Democratic members of the committee argued very convincingly that the convention method would be nearer to the people and would provide in a more democratic way an answer to the question that would be submitted under the joint resolution than would action by the legislatures. I think that is the substance of what took place.

Mr. LUCAS. Am I to understand the able Senator to say that a couple of Democratic members of the committee convinced him that they were right?

Mr. WILEY. I shall now state the third point: The Committee on the Judiciary is made up of strong individuals. It is not a one-man committee; and in order to assure the mea s ure being reported there had to be give and take. I do not think there is a better committee of the Senate than the Committee on the Judiciary, from the standpoint of acting in a bipartisan or nonpartisan manner. We try to unders tan d e a ch other ' s viewpoints. ts . The result of our discussion was a~re ement- on the measure now before the Sen at e, with, as I recall, 1 vote cast ag a inst it.

Mr. LUCAS. That leads me to this question. The House of Representatives, as the Senator knows, voted down by quite a majority this same provision when it was offered, as I recall, by Representative CoLMER, of Mississippi. What I want to know is: When the Senate . passes the joint resolution, how strong a stand are the conferees on the part of the Senate going to take when they meet with the conferees on the part of the House, who are supporting the House version? That is my next question.

Mr. WILEY. Of course, I cannot speak for the conferees. If I happen to be one of them, in view of the position I took in the committee, which I have stated heretofore in the opening argument on the joint resolution, I shall seek for a reasonable time to have the Senate version adopted. I would feel that the conferees would be in the same position that the Democrats and Republicans are on the Committee of the Judiciary. They must give consideration to each other's thoughts, judgments, and convictions, and in that way arrive at a result.

Mr. LUCAS. As I understand, the S enat or would try to give and take. · What the Senator from Illinois is asking is whether the Senator from Wisconsin will give more - than he receives? That is the point. ·

Mr. WILEY. I doubt whether I could loo k into the future and say what will happen.

Mr. LUCAS. I ask the question seri ­ ously, because the able chairman of the comm itte e will be the important member when the co n ferees meet. He is chairman of the committee; and whether he comes back here with the House version or whether he comes back with the proposal which is apparently about to be adopted by the Senate will depend upon his power, persuasion, vigor, and force in the conference.

I think it is a very important question, because Senators differ as to the way in which ratification should be effected. we may not have another opportunity to vote on the question after the conferees are th r ough.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, let me ask the Senator how he feels about this amendment.

Mr. LUCAS. I am for the legislative me th od. I know how conventions are taken care of. · In my judgment, members of the legislature are the . proper ones to consider the question. It has been said that the convention system 1s closer to the people. That is simply not so. A proposal of this kind will be thoroughly understood by everyone, and the delegates will be carefully chosen . by those who are vitally interested m seeing th is amendment to the Constitution either defeated or passed.

Mr. WILEY. As the Senator has heard me say several times already today I was in favor of ratification by three-fourths of the legislatures. That was my pe rs on a l view. But if this amendment should be agreed to by the S enat e, I would feel that it would be my duty in conference to attempt to uphold the view of the Senate, and to persuade the House conferees that the Senate's view was correct. However, I realize that the majority of the conference would govern on that question.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. BARKLEY. I appreciate the Senator's frankness. I interpret his reply to mean that as chairman of the committee he feels it his duty to support the action of the committee.

Mr. WILEY. And the direction of the Senate.

Mr. BARKLEY. That does not necessarily · change the Senator's personal convictions.

Mr. WILEY. That is correct,

Mr. BARKLEY. There is nothing inconsistent about that position. As I indicated a while ago in trying to respond to the question of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. REVERCOMB], the only time I can now recall when the convention system was adopted was when the amendment repealing the e ighte enth amendment was submitted. That was done largely because the question of prohibition was a question which agitated every human breast in America, either for or against it. There was almost fanatica l advocacy on one side or the other. When we submitted the eighteen th amendment itself, it was submitted to the States. It was not submitted to conve nti ons. Three-fourths of the S tat es promptly ratified it. But when the question of repeal arose, in view 'Jf the agitation and controversy which existed all over the country, in which everyone was interested, and with respect to which everyone would take an interest in a local convention to select del egat es to a State convention, it was felt that the convention method would probably be more representative:-at least, more recently representative-of the desires of the people, than would be the case with State legislatures · which had been previously elected.

As I see it, there is no great popular agitation at the grass roots with respect to this quest i on. It is largely a legalistic, constitutional question. Many persons have convictions one way or the other; but I doubt whether there would be such an outpouring of the people to select delegates t. o a convention as would be more representative than the legislature elected by the people, although not on that issue.

Does not the Senator feel that in submitting this question to the convention the chances would be very great that it would be a hand-picked convention, whether it was selected bY popular vote or whether, as the legislature might provide, the delegates to the State convention were selected in county conventions, which in aJl likelihood would be sparsely attended, attended by politically minded persons who were interested in the constitutional amendment one way or the other? In my judgment, there would not necessarily . be a popular response one way or the other, for or against— ertain ly no greater popular response than if the question were submitted to the legislatures to be acted upon, as has been done in nearly all cases since the Con stituti on was adopted .

Mr. WILEY. I will say in reply to the distinguished minority leader that he has stated far better than I did, and probably more persuasively, the exact convictions which I held before the committee. In substance, I stated that I felt that in the States-and I had my own State in mind-if the assemblymen and senators in the two branches of the legislature had this question before them, they, representing relatively small areas or small populations, and being, as was suggested, in contact with the people, would attempt at least to ascertain the wj . wishes of the people. Being politically minded, they would, of course, seek to be guided by the wish of the majority. I felt that such a method would provide as close democratic contact as could be had by means of a convention. The argument on the other side, as stated by the Senator from Washington [Mr. MAGNUSON], is that the legislative branch of the State government would be concerned with a multitude of problems, as we are here, whereas in a convention men and women would be selected on the basis of a single issue, and with the sole direction to vote for or against the amendment. It would be the only issue under consideration.

As a result, a consensus was arrived at . in reporting the joint resolution with this amendment. I think there is much to be said on both sides. If I had not felt that way, I would have voted not to report the joint resolution; but I wanted it to come to the floor of the Senate.

I cannot quite agree with the minority leader that there is not widespread interest in this question. I believe that possibly because of other questions at the present time, foreign and domestic, the minds of men and women are diverted from this subject. I feel that if the question is submitted either to the legislatures or to . conventions it will be found that there is a great interest in it. I believe that it will be found-as was true in former days, not so long agothat large masses of our people, as shown by the Gallup poll, feel the need for a measure of this kind.

At any rate, whatever the Senate does, we shall try to uphold the wishes of the Senate.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. BARKLEY. I appreciate the Senator's statement. However, I have a genuine fear that there will not be aroused among all the people a dynamic interest in what happens to this particular amendment ' if it is submitted. I fear that here may not be the same interest that was aroused, for example, over the question of popular election of United States Senators, which question was submitted to the legislatures of the States. That issue did not involve the question of how long anyone should hold office, but it involved the right of the people to decide for themselves through the popular election of United S tates Senators, who should hold office. In my judgment there would have been more _ reason to have submitted that amendment to conventions,'where it would have been made an issue in a proceeding to select delegates, than is the case with this particular amendment. The pending amendment does not involve the question of who is to be elect ed President, or even the method of his election. It merely involves the question of how long he may hold office, provided the people want him to hold office. The people can get rid of him at the expiration of his term without a constitutional amendment, if they wish to do so. They have frequently done so. On occasion the people have applied the same lash to Senators. They have the power to control, at the expiration of the term of any officeholder, how long he shall continue in office, or whether he shall continue in office. But that is slightly different from the right to choose the man himself, which was the question involved in the amendment providing for the direct election of United States Senators. Yet notwithstanding the widespread interest in the right of the people, rather than the legislatures, to elect their Senators, the Congress submitted to those very legislatures the amendment to determine whether Senators should be elected by popular vote. Although that amendment took away from the legislatures the right to elect Senators, the legislatures ratified the amendment by the required number, and since 1912 we have been electing Senators by direct vote of the people.

I have a very distinct fear that this question, which to some people may be very academic-=-thougfl I recognize its importance and its impact upon future possibilities in regard to the tenure of office-is not likely to arouse a great volume of popular sentiment either for or against the amendment to the extent that a convention would be truly representative and would avoid the possibility that a particular group interested either for or against the adoption of the amendment could hand-pick delegates to the convention. It might not at all represent the will of the people. For that reason I feel that in this case the State leg- slature is a more desirable repository for the authority to determine whether this amendment shall go into the Constitution than would be a convention under any circumstances, or any procedure.

Most of the members of our legislatures are ambitious men. A large proportion of them always aspire to further political preferment, and they will not consciou sly wander very far away from the sentiment of the people. Members of a convention could be, and probably would be, specially selected men who might have some particular desire for or against the amendmen~. which in the long run would not, in my judgment, automatically make it more representative than, or as representative as the legis- la ture. -

In my State we elect a legislature this year. It will meet next January; and if this amendment should be submitted to the legislature members of the legislatu re would not only have an opportunity but could be required by the people to announce Low they stood upon the question. So there might be a sort of referendum in the primaries and in the general election.

Mr. WHITE and other Senators addressed the C hair.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield; and if so, to whom?

Mr. VviLEY. I yield first to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. WHITE. There is a question which has not been alluded to, but which interests me somewhat in connection with this matter. I have no hesitation in saying that I favor the legislative method rather · than the convention method. I suggest for the Senator's consideration the fact that the framers of the joint resolution evidently desired early action upon the proposed amendment, because they wrote into the last paragraph of the joint resolution a limitation of time within which there must be affirmative action either by legislatu r es or conventions. I assume that was done to avoid delay in bringing to a consummation whatever might be the judgment of the people of the several States. If I am correct in that assumption I do not see the reason for imposing a further obstacle to legislative action. In the one instance, if the proposed amendment is to be ratified . by the legislatures, it will go directly to the State legislatures. The legislatures may be in session and may act immediately, or there may be some delay. But if the convention system is adopted it must go through the legislative process of submission and then of subsequent legislation by the several States. Then comes a new obstacle, namely, that of holding a convention. It does not seem to me that that additional step ought to be required if there is any justification for pressure or for any limitation of time.

Mr . BARKLEY. Mr. President, I should like to comment on that suggestion by way of affirmation of the Senator's fears. Many of the legislatures have been in session this year. Most of their sessions are expiring or have expired. If we were to submit this amendment to conventions, and the legislatures should not meet again until next January, they could not even provide for a · convention until the session at which they themselves could act upon the amendment if it were submitted to them. If it were submitted to convention the same legislatures would then be required to devise machinery for a convention, and that would bring about greater delay than if the legislatures themselves were authorized to consider it.

Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may ask a question of my colleague?

Mr . . WILEY. I yield \o the junior Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. COOPER. If ratification is permitted by legislatures, is it not true that members of legislatures now in session who were elected last year were elected at a time when this issue could not have been acted upon by the people? To that extent the people could not ratify this amendment.

Mr. BARKLEY. That would be true of legislatures which were still in session at the time the amendment was submitted. I think there would be very few legislatures in session. Most of them have been in session since the 1st of January. I doubt very much if by the time this amendment could be submitted and certified to the legislatures for their action, many of them would be still in session. Those that were still in session could take action. It is true that they were elected at a time when this amendment was not in issue. That argument would have vitiated all amendments to the Constitution except one, because they were all submitted to legislatures. Some members were elected afterward; some of the legislatures were in session at the time, but the members of many of them had been previously elected. So an amendment cannot be - submitted to legislatures in which there would not be some legislators who would act upon it who had been chosen prior to the submission of the amendment.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President, Mr. DONNELL. will the Senator yield?

Mr. WILEY. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. REVERCOMB. This discussion has been very interesting. We continue to discuss in the Senate whether the ratification shall - be by conventions or by legislatures, when, as a matter of fact, however we submit the question to the States, whether we say the amendment shall be ratified by conventions or by legislatures, the legislatures of the States will determine it. With all due respect to the views stated, we are debating a question which I feed is somewhat moot, because if we say we are going to submit the amendment to the States to be ratified by conventions, the State legislatures may resolve themselves into conv'entions then and there.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. P resident, will the Senator yield?

Mr. REVERCOMB. Just a moment, plea se. In any event, a legislature may say, "We want to act on this matter by a convention." So in the last analysis our discussion here cannot resolve the question whether ratification shall be by legislatures or by conventions, because the legislatures will determine that question.

The able Senator from Washington [Mr: MAGNusoN . ] has brought home to us a very definite case in which he himself took part as a member of the legislature. In acting upon the eighteenth amendment, the legislature of his State resolved itself in t o a convention and acted as a convention. That amendment specified that it was to be ratified by conventions. So I get back to the point that there is nothing to be gained by this debate upon the floor of the Senate as to which method shall be used, because in the last analysis, and in essence and finality, the legislatures of the States will say how they ' shall act, whether they themselves shall act as conventions or select others to act for them.

Mr. BARKLEY. I cannot agree with States. the Senator from West Virginia that it is a moot question as to whether we submit the amendment to State legislatures or to conventions provided by the State legislatures. It may be that in some State the legislature might seek to circumvent the intention of the Congress by resolving itself into a convention, but I think it would be a very rare legislature that would do that.

Mr. REVERCOMB.' What about the Legislature of the State of Washington?

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I wish to correct an erroneous impression. I said that we had a convention for a spec i fic purpose . The legislature acted.

Mr. BARKLEY. But the legislature · did not resolve itself into a convention.

Mr. MAGNUSON. No.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Then I misunderstood.

Mr. DONNELL and other Senators addressed the Chair. -

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield; and if s o, to whom?

Mr. WILEY. I yield first to the Senator from Missouri. Mr. President, I should like to ask a question of the Senator from Kentucky: Does he not believe there is very great doubt as to the right of a legislature to resolve itself into a convention?

Mr. BARKLEY. I very seriously doubt it.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I should like to be heard on that subject because I, too, seriously doubt it. -

Mr. BARK:WEY. If a legislature attempted to do so, it would nullify the action of the Congress in declaring that conventions should be called.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I endorse what has been stated by the Senator from Kentucky. In fact, I would say, furthermore, that undoubtedly it would circumvent the very clear distinction, presented by article V of the Constitution, between ratification by legislatures and ratification by conventions, because that article pro vides for the validity of an amendment "when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be propo posed by the Congress." .

If the legislature of a State can resolve itself into a convention, obviously, it seems to me, it would thus directly undertake to nullify the clear distinction stated in the constitutional provision to which I have referred.·

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. GEORGE. I merely wish to suggest that one very practical question involved is that, if this joint resolution is passed, it will be necessary to obtain a two-thirds majority in the Congress, and all the votes which can be obtained will be needed. I think it is perfectly obvious that the notion of a convention is merely theoretical at best, and that the safest and clearest way is to submit the amendment to the legislatures of the several

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me? '

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I think there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about substituting conventions for the State legislatures. I do not know how all States handle such matters or handle such conventions. I do - know about the procedure in my own State and in three others. The State leg i s l ature acts, and then the people of the S t ate vote on the specific issue in choosing delegates to represent them on it. A person who runs for election as a delegate to the State constitutional convention will say whether he is for or against the proposed constitutional amendment. The conventions therefore are perfunctory, because no one can influence the · delegates; each delegate is committed when he goes to the convention. Such conventions are not like political conventions.

Mr. President, we thought this way was the best way to take the issue to the people. After all, the members of the State legislatures are elected for many reasons. In my own State the members of the State senate were elected last fall, for a term of 4 years, and in the election held at that time th~ proposed constitutional amendment now under discussion was not an issue. Consequently, that legislature can act on this matter without ever knowing how the people of the State feel about it.

So we thought this way would be the . best way; and the founding fathers thought so, too. Regardless of how many voters take part in electing delegates to such a convention, at least we shall know how many of the citizens vote "yes" and how many vote “no” on this question.

After all, Mr. President, candidates for election to State legislatures run for various reasons. Of course, many State legislatures can resolve themselves into State conventions. As a matter of fact, in many States the candidates run from legislative districts.

So, Mr. President, there is nothing wrong with the method here proposed. The conventions thus provided for cannot be raped. As a matter of fact, as I have said , these conventions are merely perfunctory, and the issue is clear. The way we have proposed is the quickest way to bring the issue to the people. I voted for this measure in the committee, and I shall vote for it in the Senate; but I think the people of my State have a right to pass upon it, and to do so in the most democratic way.

- In some States the legislatures are controlled in one way or · another. Sometimes they are controlled by the big interests. But if a legislature calls a convention for this purpose, at least the people will have a right to vote on the question, and thus to express their views regarding it.

I am frank to say I do not know how many votes are likely to be cast at such a time. Perhaps there will be only a sprinkling of votes. But whoever exercises his duty of citizenship in voting on this issue will have an opportunity to vote either "Yes" or “No,” and the delegates who are selected to go to such conventions · will be bound to vote in accordance with the views of the citizens who have elected them.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, - let me inquire whether the Senator from Washington thinks that "big interests" which could control a legislature-which means they would have elected the legislature-would be any less likely to control such a convention.

Mr. MAGNUSON . The convention could not be touched. The election is what they -would have to control.

Mr. BARKLEY. But the process by which an election could be touched would be identical to the one by which a convention could be touched. ·

Mr. MAGNUSON. That is true; but if a convention is called, at least the people will have a right to vote their views on the matter. In niy State, State senators are elected for a term of 4 years, and the entire State senate was elected last fall. So, if the leg-islature acts on this question, the people of the State will not have a chance to vote on it.

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

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. LUCAS. I merely wish.to correct a misapprehension about how delegates are selected. I undertake to say that the legislature does not have to provide . candidates shall be either for or against such an amendment. A delegate can be elected to a convention of this kind without being committed in advance as to how he shall vote.

Mr. MAGNUSON. I understand; and I say I do not know how the matter is handled in all the other States. But the way I have outlined is the way it is handied in my State.

Mr. DONNELL. - Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me?

Mr. WILEY. I yield.

Mr. DONNELL. I desire to make a few remarks, in addition to directing a brief inquiry to the Senator from Wisconsin; and I ask unanimous consent that I may do so.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin cannot hold the floor indefinitely.

Mr. WILEY. I have not held the floor indefinitely thus far, Mr. President; but I am perfectly willing to take my seat at th i s time, and I do so.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, do I have the floor?

The. PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Missouri has the floor.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, several very interesting questions have been presented in the last few minutes. · I should like to refer briefly to a question suggested by the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. REVERCOMB], namely, whether it is necessary for Congress to prescribe the machinery for the selection of a convention.

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

Mr. DONNELL. I yield.

Mr. REVERCOMB. I did not intend to convey the idea that it is necessary to select one or the other procedure. Is that the point the Senator had in mind?

Mr. DONNELL. No. I understood that inquiry had been made of the Senator from West Virginia, which he in tum addressed to the Senator from Wisconsin, as to whether it is necessary for Congress to prescribe the machinery for the selection of delegates to State conventions called for the purpose of ratifying proposed constitutional amendments. Am I correct in my interpretation of the Senator's remarks?

Mr. REVERCOMB. Yes; that is the inquiry . I made, and I shall be very glad to hear the Senator from Missouri dis· cuss that subject.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I should like to say that the question thus presented is very interesting, and it seems to me that even though we look into the matter rather hast-ily, it is still worth while for the RECORD to show the results of one or two great adjudications upon it.

It may be pointed out that in 1933, in my own State of Missouri, a convention was provided for and called, as I understand, to pass upon the twenty-first amendment. In that case certain litigation ensued, leading to the decision of State ex rel. Tate against Sevier, to be found in 333 Missouri 662. I quote the following language from pages 667 and 668 of that decision:

Our State constitution does not authorize the legislature to set up the machinery by wh i ch a convention may be assembled to ratify or reject an amendment to the Federal Constitution. That authority emanates from the Federal Constitution. Article V thereof provides that the Congress shall determine whether ratification shall be by conventions in the several States, or by the legislatures thereof. When the Congress proposes an amendment for ratification by conventions, although it does not provide how and by whom such conventions shall be assembled, its direction that the ratification shall be by conventions, necessarily implies · authority to provide for the assembling of such conventions. (5) It therefore follows that when the legislature enacted House Bill 514 which provides the method for assembling a convention, it was not, strictly speaking, performing the functions of a legislative body for the State, but was acting as a representative of the people, pursuant to authority delegated to it by the Federal Constitution to pro- . vide a method for obtaining and assembling conventions to rep r esent the people in ratifying or rejecting proposed amendments to the Federal Constitution.

So, Mr. President, I submit that at least the Supreme Court of Missouri has taken the view that it is not necessary for Congress to enact the details for the selection of the delegates to a convention. I call attention also to the fact that that court cited another case from another jurisdiction, namely, the case of Donnelly v. Myers, Secretary ot State (186 N'ortheastern 918), decided by the Supreme Court of Ohio on July 12, 1933. With the permission of the Senate I read the following from tbe decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri with respect to the Ohio case. Says the Supreme Court of Missouri at page 668 of 333 Missouri:

The facts of that case-

That is to say, the Ohio caseshow that after the Seventy-second Congress proposed an amendment to the Federal Constitution repealing the eighteenth amendment, the General Assembly of Ohio enacted Senate bill No. 204 setting up the machinery for the calling of a convention to pass upon amendments to the Federal Constitution. Thereafter on June 21, 1933, a petition purporting to be signed by the requisite number of persons seeking a referendum on Senate bill No. 204 was filed with the secretary of state. A suit was brought to prohibit the secretary of state from submitting the question to a vote of the people. The question thus presented to the Supreme Court of Ohio is the exact question which is presented 1n the case at bar. In denying the right to a referendum the Supreme Court of Ohio saidThen follows the quotation to which I refer:

Under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 1n Hawke v. Smith, Secretary of State (253 U. 8. 221), there can be no referendum upon the decision of a State legislature to ratify or to reject a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution.

Then I proceed to the further quotation from the Ohio court:

In our opinion, however, the calling of such convention is but a step necessary and incidental to the final action of the convention in registering the voice of a State upon the amendment proposed by the Congress. The action of the Legislature in per- . forming this function rests upon the authority of article V of the Constitution of the United States : It is a Federal function, which in the absence of action by the Congress, the State legislature is authorized to perform.

Citing Lesser v. Garnett (258 U. S. 137). Smiley v. Holm (285 U. S. 355).

So , Mr. President. I undertake to say that the decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri and that of ~he Supreme Court of Ohio indicate very clearly that it is not necessary for Congress to enact the details of the machinery for the selection of delegates to a convention.

I observe also in the annotations of the United States Code, annotated, with respect to article V of the Constitution, this language:

Convention to ratify or reject proposed amendments to Federal Constitution must come into being pursuant to State law which must be duly enacted pursuant to State constitutions.

Citing Opinions of the Justices, - 1933, 148 Southern 107, 226 Alabama 565, which would appear to bear out the same view taken by the Missouri and Ohio courts.

Mr. President, the second point which was presented a little while ago was as to whether or not a legislature can itself act as a convention; that is to say, if we adopt the pending joint resolution providing for a convention, can the legislatures of the respective States resolve themselves into . conventions?

I have not taken the opportunity to look into the precedents ori this point, and I rto not know whether or not any State legislatures have taken the view that they can do so; but I desire to emphasize, in a very few sentences, both the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. BARKLEY], the minority leader, and the remarks which I made a few moments ago, to the general effect that it would seem perfectly clear that under article V of the Constitution it was the intention of the framers of the Constitution either that the legislatures shall be the ratifying bodies, or that conventions shall · be the ratifying bodies.

It appears to me, therefore, Mr. President, by the language which I read a few moments ago from that article, that if any legislature should resolve itself into a convention it would be a clear nullification of the intention of article V. Whether or not such action would be subject to collateral attack, whether or not it has ever been done by any legislature, I do not know; but I desire at · this moment to place in the RECORD the position, as clearly as I can. to the effect that no legislature has the moral or the legal right to resolve itself into a convention to pass upon such an amendment,

Mr. REVERCOMB. Mr. President. will the Senator from Missouri yield?

Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. REVERCOMB. The Senator has expounded the view that all matters of machinery and the arrangements for the convention · are within the unlimited . powers of the State legislatures. If the State legislatures have the power to set up the machinery of holding a convention, let us say, what is to limit their power to . say that "the members of this legislature shall be the delegates to the convention?"

Let me address a further question to the able Senator. The legislatures fix the method of the selection of the delegates, they say how many delegates .there shall be, what units of territory are included within . the representation of the delegates-all those things are fixed by the legislature. There is no limit upon it. What, then, is there to prevent the legislature from saying, as a matter of saving expense to the people, "We have been elected by the people, we discussed this in an elect i on, therefore we say that the members of the · legislatu r e shall be the delegates to the convention?" What is there to prevent that?

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, the answer is twofold. In the first place, a;rticle vr of the Constitution reads in part as follows:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United S tate s which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties m ad e, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land. ·

That is one point. The further point is that just as the Constitution has provided that it and the Federal laws and treaties shall be the supreme law of the l and, it then follows that we should look into the Constitution to see whether or not there is any prohibition against the legislatures doing what the distinguished Senator from West Virginia mentions, namely, the setting up of themselves as conventions.

In that connection, I reiterate that article V clearly, it seems to me: contemplates that the legislatures have no power to do so, because article V distinctly discriminates between legislatures on the one hand and conventions on the other. If article V can be construed to authorize the legislatures to constitute themselves into conventions, then the legislatures have it within their power utterly to w i pe out and ignore the very distinction and discrimination drawn by the Cons t itution, which latter instrument is, as indicated before, under article VI, among the instruments which constitute the supreme law of the land. That is my answer to the question.

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

Mr. DONNELL. I shall yield, unless the Senator from West Virginia desires to further interrogate me.

Mr. REVERCOMB. Just one or two observat i o ns.

Mr. DONNELL. I shall be glad to Yield to the Senator from Texas as soon as the Sena t or from West VIrginia shall conclude. ·

Mr. REVERCOMB. I was very much Interested in the line of argument made to the effect that if the legislature made a condition that members of the legislature should be tlie delegates to the conven ti on, it would defeat--

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. President, until the acoustics of the Senate Chamber are improved, Senators on the other side who desire to have their colleagues hear what they say will have to speak a little louder. Will not the Senator from West Virginia speak louder?

Mr. REVERCOMB. Very well. The argument has been made that if the leg isl atures of the States should prov i de that the members of the legislatures should be the delegates to conventions to consider the ratification of an amendment to the Constitution, that would defeat the provisions of the Constitution, and that the same State leg is lators would not in fact, under such a decision. be a convention. Does the Senator go so far as to say that if deleg ate s running before the people for elect i on to the leg i s­ lature should advocate that course, and the same persons should be selected as delegates to a convention and also as members constituting the leg is lature, that would be a viol ati on?

Mr. DONN E LL. Mr. President, my a nswe r is " N o," if the members of the electorate of a State were privileged to vote for those indiv i duals, bo t h as memb ers of the legislature and as members of the convention. But I undertake to say that even though every member of the legislature should run for the legislature upon a plank providing what he would do or what he would not do with respect to an amendment, there is no moral or legal or constitutional right for such legi s lature to resolve itself into a convention. Article V of the Constitution clearly and obviously dis ti ngui s hes between the two, and expresses the intent of the framers of the Constitution, that the choice must be made between the legislature on the one hand and the convention on the o ther.

Now I yield to the Senator from Texas.

Mr. CONNALLY. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from M i ssouri. I think he is sound in the argument he has just made. I merely wish to make a suggestion, in answer to the Senator from West Virginia, as to what the remedy will be. If the State legislature should as sum e to convert itself into a convention, the Federal Government could reject its action and say you have not done this in the waY that is prescribed, which was by convention. Its vote would not count when the certification c a me to Washington to be filed with the Secretary of State. He would reject it. I think that is one answer.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. P resi dent, I appreciate the suggestion by the Senator. As I indicated a few moments ago, I do not know whether an attack, colla t eral, or whatever it may be, · could be made upon the action of a S tat e legislature, whether there would come into play some sort of theory that there was a political · action with which the Supreme Court of the United States would not interfere. I am not saying what the ul timat e decision would be, but I thoroughly agree with the soundness of the principle suggested by the distinguished Senator from Texas, and it would seem to me that obviously if the Legislature of the State of Missouri or Io.wa, or any other State, were to resolve itself Into a convention, and the action of such so-called convention were then . to . be certified to Washington, a test could be made upon a · mandamus suit directed against the proper official here, directing him either to file or not file the instrument so presented. As one Member of the Senate, I want to reiterate most strongly that to my mind any legislature which undertakes to resolve itself into a convention is violating the Constitution, to wit, article V.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, will ' the Se nat or yield?

Mr. DONNELL. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BARKLEY. If one State could do ­ th at , all 48 States could do it.

Mr. DONNELL. Precisely.

Mr. BARKLEY. It certainly would go to the validity of the action of all o f them in ratifying, if they did ratify this amendment.

Mr. DONNELL. I thank the Senator and concur with him.

I ha:sten on because I realize the lateness of the hour, and I want to say a wo r d , as a third propo s ition, on the question that we have been debating-as to whether the action of ratification should be taken by conventions or should be · taken by legislatures.

It happens to be my . very highly ' esteem e d privilege to be a member of the · Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, and I want to say, along the line of the rema r ks of our distinguished chairman, the Senator from Wisconsin, that I have found the members of that committee to have individual minds, expressive of individual opinions, though they have showr a fine spirit of cooperation in the attempt to resolve their various differences along reasonable and proper lines.

I was one of . those who at first glance took the position, in my own mind, that the method of proceeding before legislatures was the proper method. · I was · somewhat firmly entrenched in that view, I thought, by reason of the fact that I found that in every instance ratification of a constitutional amendment had been accomplished by the legislatures of the States, with the single exception of the twenty-first amendment. But, Mr. President, on further consideration, after the very strong presentation, as I recall it, by the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. McGRATH], upon the proposition that there is an advantage in action by convention; I came to the conclusion that there is. My position upon that matter is simply this: As has been so well stated by other Senators th is afternoon, when men are elected tc a convention upon the specific issue of being in favor of or opposing the amendment, then a convention has been selected, not to pass upon some road · question, not to pass upon the support·of the penitentiary, not to pass upon the numerous local questions which always enter into the equation when men . are candidates for the legislature, but there · is action by a body which was chosen · for one specific purpose, a body upon which the full force of publicity can be centered, a body which has the responsibility which every citizen in the State · has the right, at any rate, to know is going to be observed by that convention. I was greatly impressed with the suggestion made by the distinguished junior Senator from Kentucky, upon my own side of the aisle, and I hope that he will not feel that this is in any sense flattery, and I hope that. no other Senator will so regard it. I want to say that our distinguished minority leader has given to this body a fine example of leadership in the past and at the present, and I want to say that, in my judgment, he is to be congratulated, as weir as the State of Kentucky and the Senate, upon the fact that he has a colleague of the capacity and the integrity and stamina of the distinguished junior Senator from Ken- · tucky. I have worked · with him in the Judiciary Committee, and I think I know whereof I speak. I was digressing, but I think, in justice to him, it is well for the Senate to know something of the hard, conscientious work which the junior Senator from Kentucky has been doing in the Judiciary Committee of this body.

I was impressed with his point, namely, that members who have been already elected to the legislature of his or of other States this year, and are now serving in the legislatures, would, if the legislatures were to be permitted to pass upon this problem, vote upon the ' amendment, perhaps decide whether the amendment should be adopted or should be defeated, and yet not a single one of them was elected upon the issue as to whether this amendment should or . should not be ratified.

I appreciate the fact, Mr. President, that there may be some delay involved in securing action upon this amendment if . it be submitted to conventions for ratification. I am aware of that fact, but, on the other hand, I realize that we have lived for a good many years under 'the existing provisions. To my mind, it is no criticism of the convention method to suggest that it may afford opportunity for further and adequate consideration by the country, even though it results in some cooling off in the process of consideration, even though it involve some delay in the consideration of and action upon the amendment. ·

Mr. President , to my mind we have a choice between submitting this amendment to bodies and individuals throughout the 48 States who have not been selected, t ed, and who will not be selected upon the issue of whether this amendment should or should not be ratified; we have the opportunity, I say, of choosing between that alternative on the one hand, or, · on the _ other hand, of choosing a method by which every man who votes upon the proposition will have been elected by reason of the fact that the people knew that he stood for or against, or at least that he had the opportunity to be catechised upon that question by the people before he was elected to the convention.

So, Mr. President, in closing, I submit three propositions:

First, it iS not necessary for Congress to prescribe the machinery · for the selection of conventions. The cases which I have mentioned, I think, amply substantiate that point.

In the second place, to my mind the legislatures have no moral or legal right to constitute themselves into conventions; and

In the third place, the proper, the appropriate, and the wise plan for the handling of this matter should be through the method of the choice by conventions, as I finally came to believe after hearing the splendid arguments of the Senator from Rhode Island and doubtless other members of our commit tee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the · first committee amendment. ·

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, in view of the lateness of the hour, and in view of the fact that many of the Senators have gone home, I desire to propose a unanimous-consent request. First, I ask that at not · later than 12:30 Monday a vote be taken on the pending amendment.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Wisconsin that on Monday, at not later than 12:30 o'clock, the Senate shall vote on the first . st committee amendment?

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, . ct, I have occasion to know that there are Senators on this side of the aisle who would object to any unanimous-consent request fixing a definite time for voting. Under those circumstances, I feel I must object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Mr. WILEY. Mr. President, there has been much newspaper criticism with respect to inaction by Congress. I think everything has been said that could be said pro and con in relation to the pending constitutional amendment. My purpose in submitting the request was to try to facilitate action on the joint reso- · lution. I intended to follow it up by the request, which I shall now make, that not later than 5 o'clock on Monday next the Senate shall vote on all amendments to the joint resolution and On the joint resolution itself.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin submits the unanimous-consent request that on Monday, at not later than 5 O'ClOCk, the Senate shall vote upon all amendments to the pending joint resolution and upon the joint resolution itself. Under the rule a quorum call is necessary before _ that request Can be agreed to.

Mr. WHITE. Mr. President, every consideration which led me to object to the previous request applies in the present instance. I understand the Chair to be Correct in hiS Statement that there must be a quorum call before action can be taken on the request, and it does not seem to me that we ought to proceed to that extremity at this time. 1 object.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.

Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I should like to address myself to the Senator from Wisconsin. While both requests which he made were agreeable to me, I can appreciate the reasons why the Senator from Maine feels called upon to object. I think the chances are · very great that we will be able to conclude consideration of all the amendments and the joint resolution itself on Monday regardless of the absence of any agreement. I shall cooperate to that end to the extent of my ability. I do not know how many other Senators want to address the Senate on the main proposal. I myself wish briefly to discuss it. I know of two or three other Senators who also wish to do so. But I see no reason why we cannot conclude action on Monday.

Mr. WILEY. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I submit an amendment to the pending joint resolution and ask that it be printed. I shall not ask for its consideration at this time.

The PRESlDENT pro tempore. The amendment offered by the Senator from Washington to the joint resolution will be printed and lie on the table.

EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED

As in executive session,

The PRESIDENT pro tempore laid before the Senate messages from the President of the United States submitting sundry nominations, which were referred to the appropriate committees.

(For nominations this day received, see the end of Senate proceedings.)