February 2, 1960

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morning business is closed, and the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business.

The Senate resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 39) to amend the Constitution to authorize Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing . to the . amendment of the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] to add a new section to the joint resolution.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President-

. The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I should like to continue with my discussion of the pending business at the point where I left off yesterday afternoon.

I shall first summarize the points I raised with reference to the proposal that the Constitution be amended so as to permit the Governors of the respective States to fill vacancies by temporary appointments in the House of Representatives at any time the vacancies in the House membership exceed one-half the membership thereof.

Mr. President, yesterday I pointed out that this matter was before the Senate on June 4, 1954, in the form of Senate Joint Resolution 39, and that that measure passed the Senate by a very . large vote, but at the same time with what I think was very scant attention. I also pointed out that more than 5 ~ years have elapsed since then, but still the House of Representatives gave no consideration to that joint resolution and has not given any consideration to the subject matter since then, even · though on May 19, 1955, the Senate passed a similar joint resolution, also by a very large vote, but without pro and con consideration and debate. Even though that was more than 4% years ago, the House of Representatives very properly has not given any formal consideration to the subject matter. No hearings have been held by the appropriate House committee. No House committee action has been taken. No action has been taken on this matter on the floor of the House. Of course, the Congress when the joint resolution was passed by the Senate has now expired, and that joint resolution could not now be considered. However, there has been no movement on the part of the House membership at this session or at the preceding session of this Congress to take up this subject matter or consider it in any way, even though it pertains solely and exclusively to the question of filling vacancies in the House of Representatives. I make clear that I do not say that critically; I think the House . is most certainly very eminently correct and sound in its position of not going so far as to consider a constitutional amendment to meet a situation of this kind, however grave it may be, although I believe its graveness is greatly exaggerated.

Furthermore, not one Member of the House of Representatives came before the Senate committee to testify in behalf · of the joint resolution; and, so far as I have been able to ascertain from the Members of that body, not one of its Members is interested in the proposal or is in favor of it.

I think this is one of the most unusual and striking situations to develop in the Congress-namely, that the body which is not directly affected has acted, not only once, not only twice, but is now asked to act the third time, in regard to a matter the need of which is certainly as easy to be judged by the Members of the House of Representatives · as it is by the Members of the Senate. Yet certain of the Members of the Senate have been the only ones to attempt to initiate and put into motion a plan of action and conduct pertaining to filling vacancies in the membership of the other body.

Yesterday I said, with all deference to everyone concerned, that it seems to me rather childish for us to be taking a step of this kind. Furthermore, the need for it certainly is as evident to the Members of the House as it is to the Members of the Senate; and certainly this matter is of as grave concern to the House as it is to the Senate; and the House certainly has as much capacity as does the Senate to find a remedy.

As I also pointed out yesterday afternoon, whatever the situation is, there is a very simple and a very adequate remedy, and doubtless it is what the House . has in mind: Instead of resorting to the long process of amending the ' Constitution and to _ that extent making a dent upon the very nature and foundation structure of the House of Representatives, · the House .can very easily and - sim• . ply amend its rules, so as to provide that in case of an emergency of the kind envisioned, following a nuclear attack or partial destruction by bombing or any similar catas · catastrophe, less than a majority of the House membership would be authorized , to act, certainly · for a reasonable length of time, which could be calculated to be the time required for the vacancies to be filled in the regular way. Thus, any situation of that sort would be met just as effectively, Mr. President; and such a plan certainly would be in accordance with sound parliamentary law.

However, the major point is that it would preserve intact the basic founda- tion and spirit of one of the very mud- sills of the House of Representatives it- self-namely, that from the inception of our Government until this very moment, no one has ever cast a vote as a Member of the House of Repre s entatives, either on the floor of the House or in a House committee, or has ever taken any other official act of any kind as a Member of that body, unless first elected by the people as their chosen Representat i ve so to do. I believe that is one of the great virtues and one of the great mudsills and foundations of . the House of Representatives. Personally, I believe the Members of the House want to keep it that way, and we want them to keep it that way.

I like to think of the fact that no one can enter the sac r ed portals of the House of Representatives, as a Member of the House, until first successfully passing through the barrier of popular election and selection by the people of his State or the people of one of the districts of his State to directly represent them in that great body. To cast aside that system, without any need or necessity to do so, and without giving any consideration to the views of the other body, is to me unthinkable, unsound, and unnecessary; and I believe that by all means it should not be done.

In trying to prepare for such a contingency, anyway, should there be a nuclear attack or the dropping on the Capital of atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, or missiles, it seems to me that certainly thereafter about the only governmental power which would be exercised for a considerable length of time would be executive power, under the rule of necessity-arbitrary power of some kind, lodged in some person. So if we are really going to try to legislate on this matter, we had better do something about a successor or a succession to the holding of power by the executive branch of the Government, inasmuch as if there were to be such an attack, the President, the Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and others who, under present law, are eligible to succeed to the Chief Executive's post, most probably would be found here on Capitol Hill, or within the orbit of the attack, and the question would be how many of them would survive. So if action is necessary, instead of providing for the Members of the House or the Members of this body, first thought should be given to the executive branch.

However, I personally believe, anyway, Mr. President, that to popularize and advertise and pass on these matters year after year and time after time is to do nothing more than to alarm our people and to give encouragement to the adversary.

In my opinion, we are overdoing the idea of trying to think up and imagine any possibility that might happen or could happen, and we show too great a concern and forethought about such a problem as this which is so easy to talk about. Such concern as this can be pointed to in the councils of the world, outside our country, by our adversaries as evidence of our instability and nervousness, and even as evidencing the idea of inferiority, if we indulge in such channels of thought as this, to the extent of changing a basic principle of our Government by a constitutional amendment. I personally think the signs we have, "Shelter. Safety Here” spread all over Capitol Hill are an admission of weakness and evidence of fright.

Coming now to the next step in the propo s al which is pending before the Senate, it is to hang on to this proposed constitutional amendment another proposed amendment which has nothing whatsoever-absolutely nothing of a substantial nature-in common with the first one. The second proposed amendment is offered as a rider or as a floor amendment. It does not come from any committee. It is offered as a floor amendment. It is to outlaw or abolish the poll tax.

One angle of the proposed constitutional amendment is to eliminate elections, to a degree, and adopt a new method of selecting Members of the Congress; and the other aspect of the proposal travels in the other direction, with reference to qualifications of voters in elections. One is based upon an emergency, with reference to a possible nuclear attack; and the other has reference to long-continuing law which is written on the face of the Constitution, and which has been the law from the very inception of our Government. There is no affinity between them whatsoever, except the very small fragment that they happen both to pertain to elections or the selection of public officials. But the methods provided, the substance of the proposals, are the very opposite.

Are we really seriously going to propose, as the Senate of the United States, these totally unrelated matters in the same amendment to the people and the State legislatures of our 50 respective States? Can we argue that the two go together, or that one depends on the other, or that they have any major dependence one on the other, or any major relation one to the other?

Skipping over, for the time being, the inconsistency of having one vote on final passage, and the possibility that a Senator may favor one aspect of the proposal, but not the other, and turning to the question of submitting to the State legislatures the proposed constitutional change with not only this lack of real affinity, but having a conflict within itself, as I understand the situation, the proposals would be submitted to the State legislatures with one choice, and they would have to take it or leave it: They could not split it up and take one without the other.

Mr. President, I submit that the question of amending the Constitution of the United States on any subject is a most serious one, and that the Senate would not be living up to its expectations or to its historical tradition if it should see fit to submit these two amendments together. I think the fact that they are proposed together is enough to defeat both of them.

Certainly, it seems to me we should not take the time to argue about these · matters, or even submit such an amendment to the States when we have before us many pressing problems that make demands on the Congress for some kind of solution, particularly when one of the proposals could be settled by a simple rule in the House of Representatives, and the other of which has been debated here for 40 years. Certainly the change has not been found essential, and it cannot be so material for the welfare of the Nation. We are getting along, under present law, with the poll tax.

Mr. President, that is the substance, by way of a very brief review, of my argument with reference to that phase of the pending question. I proceed now to a discussion of the second proposal before the Senate, the so-called anti-poll-tax amendment to this totally unrelated joint resolution with reference to authorizing Governors to fill temporary vacancies in the House of Representatives.

Mr. President, a great deal has been said about the poll tax. A great deal is misunderstood about the poll tax. It is thought of, in some circles, as being a tax on the right to vote, or is loosely called that. A poll tax is a tax on the person. Like other taxes such as a tax on a piece of property, or a tax on income, it is a head tax. The word "poll" comes from the word . meaning people. That is the basis of the taxation. It is based on the simple proposition that everyone who enjoys the fruits of the government should pay some tax. That is the origin of the tax-that there should be a tax upon each person. It is nothing new: in American history. It has always been recognized, as I shall show by specific references to cases and historical facts.

Mr. President, it has always been characteristic . of our Government to require every person to pay some tax. Many States and many of the Colonies at the time of the American Revolution, and afterward, required the payment of a property tax or poll tax, or some kind of a contribution to the costs of government, before citizens could enjoy the privileges of government.

I never have believed o . otherwise than that is a sound principle of government. I do not know that I have had many thrills in life greater than that I felt at the time I cast my first vote. I had the thrill of knowing that I was participating in the government directly, and I was also paying some tax, and therefore was sharing a part of the privileges and had a part in carrying some of the responsibility.

I never have believed otherwise, especially in view of the fact the right to vote is a privilege. Voting is a privilege; it is not a right. It never has been a right. I hope in our form of government it never will be a pure right. . The casting of a vote is a privilege, and that privilege arises from the States of the Union, not from the Federal Government. The Federal Government has never had the power to confer the privilege of voting upon anyone. That privilege arises from the States, and not from the Federal Government. There is written into the basic law of the Federal Government itself the direct provision that the Congress shall never-shall never-undertake to create the qualifications of electors. The privilege of voting comes from the States, and therefore the Federal Government adopts the qualifications the States prescribe.

Mr. President, a State cannot even set up a double standard, to say, "These will be the qualifications for electors who vote for Members of Congress," and these will be the qualifications of those who vote for other officials. That cannot be done. The States are forced to prescribe the qualifications of voters for members of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. Those auto- . matically become the guide or the rule which applies to the election of Members of the National Congress.

I repeat, Mr. President, that voting is a privilege. That privilege arises from the State itself. Therefore, the States ought to have control.

Even apart from what is written into the · Constitution, logic dictates that the States should have such control. As I have said, it is a privilege to pay something, to pay some kind of a tax or to make some .contribution in order to be able to vote. I remember that as a young boy I heard a very fine sermon, the substance of which was, "Salvation is free." I did not believe it then, and I do not believe it now. I am not a theologian, and do not intend to enter into a discussion of theology. We could never earn salvation ourselves. It is doubtless free; in a sense, but I think in any realm reward requires some kind of · effort on iny part. I have to live up to something. I have to do something. I cannot be fully worthy; there is something I have to do. I still believe that. I believe that in our free Government freedom is a two-way street. The people ought to be told that. It should be emphasized at every turn, everywhere, every day in every manner. There is something the people must do. The privileges we enjoy simply do not come like rain from the heaven. There is a two-way street. Privileges and responsibilities go hand in hand.

I know that in this day and time we have the "nothing down and a dollar a month" idea. I went by a shop window in Jackson, Miss., one day last year, and I saw an electric skillet of some kind in the window, with a sign which said, "Price, $12; nothing down and a dollar a month." I am afraid that serves to illustrate, Mr. President, the attitude we are getting into now, that, after all, Government involves nothing down and just a little paid along the way if we want to, and if we cannot make the payment then the Government will finance the deal anyway. I simply do not believe ll?- the "nothing · down" form of Government. I believe that would be harmful for all of us.

I do not think there is any sound principle of logic or commonsense or anything else · to support such an idea. There should be at least some kind of a requirement for some kind of a payment on the part of all who go to the ballot box. I know that is the way it works in my State. The payment of . the poll tax has proved to be a very reasonable regulation of the exercise of the high privilege of voting, and it is such a small amount that it is certainly easily within the reach of everyone to pay. But if any person should be crippled or should be otherwise incapacitated, such person can get a certificate of exemption. The tax is only $2 a year per person, and it applies to all alike, . regardless of sex, color, or any other consideration. There is a provision that persons above 60 years of age, who presumably have a smaller earning capacity, are not even required to pay the tax, but merely have to be certified that they are exempt . Some say they do not think the poll tax is sound in principle. I think it is. It is a very reasonable, very effective regulation. It requires that a person manifesting an interest in an election shall pay a small amount for the privilege of participating.

I have never seen an illustration of any material or substantial abuse with reference to the poll tax law. Stories are told about some ward politician showing up with a pocket full of poll tax receipts at the last minute, and getting persons whom he controls qualified to vote. Mr. President, I could not say that such things do not happen sometimes, somewhere, but I certainly know they do not happen in my State, and I do not believe they happen on any extensive scale anywhere. The laws require that the tax must be paid in advance, and no one can show up at the last minute and pay the poll tax for others so as to control their votes. That simply does not happen.

Another feature of the tax in my State is that a citizen has to pay only one year's arrears, if he falls behind in his payments. He has to pay only one year's arrears of the tax in order to be qualified to vote. There is none of the stacking up of delinquencies or anything of that kind.

We do not have any machinery of government for the collection of unpaid poll taxes. When the election is already past, the Government does not try to gouge the money out of the people anyway. That is simply not done. The law does not permit it. That is not the idea of the tax, anyway. The idea is tied in with the privilege of casting a vote.

On top of all that, Mr. President, the money goes solely and exclusively for the public education of all children in all the public schools. As I recall, the money has to be spent in the county where the · tax is imposed or where the person lives. The money has to be spent for schools in that county. So the money is tied down to that degree. It cannot be spent for · any other purpose except for the general education of children.

It is often said that this tax is something which is aimed at the colored people, in an effort to keep them from voting. This provision is a sound, simple regulation of the privilege of voting. I should say that if there were not a single colored person in my entire State, I believe there are many indifferent people whose numbers ought to be thinned out before the election. If they are not so constituted as to manifest some interest in the government, and if they are not will to pay some small token of a tax, it makes no difference who they are or what State they are in, if they do not show an affirmative interest, with more or less continuity, by a small token payment, as a general group they are very rightfully excluded from appearing at the last moment and canceling out the ballot cast by a citizen who does have an interest and who does carry the burdens of government.

So, as a reasonable regulation of this privilege, the law has nothing whatsoever to do with the color line in my State. There are hundreds of colored people who vote regularly, not merely in presidential elections or congressional elections, but in State elections and city elections. They have met the modest requirement, just as everyone else has. On the other hand, until we had the sales tax in my State, that was all the tax many people paid. The small amount of poll tax was the only tax they paid. we now have a sales tax. One of its virtues is that it applies across the board, and everyone, according to his standard of living, pays something, However, the tax is still not so heaVY . as to be burdensome even on those with the most modest income.

Many sound legal principles apply to the question which we are discussing, and which we would glibly sweep aside by a proposed constitutional amendment. A great many of such principles go back to the fundamental proposition that the privilege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government. That is a judicial determination, reiterated many times by every court in our land; and we find it expressed by those who drafted the Constitution as well as those who have lived under it since that time. ·· I now wish to discuss the question in a more formal way, leading up gradually to some of the principles to which I have referred, as they are reflected in the adjudications of our courts, and in the documents connected with the writing of the Constitution.

It has been stated on the :floor of the Senate that the proposed amendment would affect only five States; namely, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia; also that the proposed amendment would remove any other economic disqualification for voting, other than the poll tax, which is at present on the books of the States of Florida, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and South Carolina.

This is an unusual situation. The · proposed amendment provides that it shall be submitted to the State legiSlatures, to be adopted at any time within a period of 7 years; and if it is not ra.t1- · fied within a period of 7 years, it will fall. That would leave a situation whereby, after 1 year, 2 years, 3 or 4 or 5 years, or even almost 7 years, the last State required to act could act favorably, and the people of all the States I have mentioned would suddenly wake up in the morning to find out that all their election laws with reference to property qualifications or poll tax qualifications of any kind had been swept aside. The Legislature of the State of Washington, for example, might cast a vote at 10 o'clock some night which would repeal all laws I have mentioned in Rhode Island, Vermont, Texas, Mississippi, or any other State. They would be repealed automatically. Such action would require the automatic repeal of laws which are intertwined with ment. the election laws. It would require the calling of a legislative session in those States, no doubt, to rewrite and clarify the law, as a practical matter, before an election could be held. I do not know of anything which would cause more uncertainty and more confusion in the m ind s of the people than to open up a situation like that, and scramble the election laws, including the constitutions of many of the States. I think it would show disrespect to the States. In addition, it would impose a tremendous burden. The situation could be met only by a session of the legislature; and in some cases a constitutional amendment would be required, involving the lapse of the required time, whatever it may be, for the ratification of the amendment.

That situation would apply not only to Federal elections, but to city elections, county elections, and State elections. It would apply to elections which might be held in the meantime with reference to bond issues, the imposition of taxes, and a great many other matters.

I am not trying to find "bugaboos." I am trying to deal with the practical realities which any lawyer would consider.

I cannot understand why those who make this proposal insist that this provision be written like the laws of the Medes and Persians, without any exception or change, without crossing a “t” or dotting an "i." It is proposed that the regulat i on be uniform, and that the States be allowed to sink or swim, and left to find their way as best they can through this darkness.

This proposal would affect many laws which are intertwined. Perhaps the provisions which would be stricken down would affect as many as 100 statutory sections of State laws in a dozen or more States, which would have to be rewr itt en. There would be no guideline. I do not know of anything that could happen which would throw so much confusion into the elections as would result from the adoption of such an amendment. Certainly great confusion would follow until there was time to clarify and rewrite the State laws.

Mr. President, I respectfully submit that we shall go far wrong if we consider that the proposal affects only those States which have poll taxes or economic sanctions in effect. In reality it affects 50 States, because it seeks to control the suffrage clause of the Constitution of the United States.

A great part of my remarks now with reference to the pending question will refer to the proposal submitted by the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], wherein he will propose at the proper parliamentary time, as I understand, as a substitute for the pending proposed constitutional amendments, a proposed statutory enactment which would in effect repeal the poll tax.

Certainly if any action is to be taken on the subject matter, the only possible legal and constitutional way to do it is by proposing a constitutional amendThat point has been debated a long time and with almost unanimity of opinion, and that conclusion is firm in the Nation.

I respectfully call the attention of the Senate to the fact in the very beginning that this is one of the most important and one of the most touchy subjects to be found in our form of government. It is a subject matter with relation to which the framers of nearly all our State constitutions and of our own National Constitution have proceeded with great caution. When they came to consider the subject, almost invariably, instead of vesting the legislative bodies of the Government with power to prescribe and control what shall be the qualifications of electors, the people, through their organic law, have themselves prescribed those qualifications.

I desire to make the further point that it is not merely a matter of States rights. That question is involved, but it cannot be dismissed as merely a question of States rights as such. I think it affects the political integrity of the Nation and the preservation of constitutional government.

Mr. President, I ask that we always remember that this is not a political campaign matter we are considering. We are dealing with the Constitution of the United States. Let us remember also that we are dealing with one of the most delicate subjects within the Constitution. Not long ago I stood in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. I walked around the chamber there, remembering that was where the Constitution of the United States was written. I tried to picture in my mind where it was that Benjamin Franklin sat. I tried to picture where James Madison sat. I thought of the presiding officer, George Washington, and I felt that a political halo hovered over that place. I thought of the great document those men penned there, how, while the world scoffed, they wrote that instrument, and how it has become the object of admiration of all the world, and how we have grown. That towering city of millions was little more than a village then, and I thought how we have grown into a great Nation, ' the most powerful in the world.

I thought of the city of Washington, where meet the political leaders of the world. My thoughts shifted back then . to the scene of the Senate .floor, and I knew this bill would most likely be brought up for consideration. I picked out in my mind the towering personalities in this Chamber, and compared them in my mind with the patriotic personalities who once sat on the .floor of Independence Hall. I can say in all sincerity that they compared favorably in intellect, in intelligence, and in attainments, and they compared well in patriotism.

We come back again and again to the proposition that the Constitution of the United States provides that the qualifications shall be the same for electing members of State legislatures as for electing Members of Congress.

Mr. President, that was one of the foundation stones. It was finally agreed upon after a major controversy on the subject in Independence Hall. Students of the Constitution far abler than I have said that without that agreement perhaps there would never have been any basic agreements and no Constitution, at least not at the time is was accepted

Again, Mr. President, can we lightly, as the successors to those men of political position at that date, come here now and sweep aside the basic principles which were written so clearly into the basic law? Congress cannot possibly have any kind of power to prescribe what shall be the qualifications of electors to elect members of the most numerous branches of State legislatures. If that be true, how can Congress, under any clause of the Constitution, have power to say that the Constitution is all wrong, and that we shall establish a list of qualifications for voters for Members of Congress, and that State legislatures can do what they please under the Constitution with respect to the qualifications of electors of the lower branch of State legislatures? It is proposed that we shall not follow the Constitution with respect to the question of qualifications. I do not see how we can pursue such a course. That is why I say it is not a question of expediency. It is a matter of what might be proper under certain circumstances. It is a matter of doing something to which the wise and the just can repair, as George Washington rem ark ed during the Const itut ional Convention.

Certainly it means something when the Constitution provides in amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitut i on, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the St at es respect ivel y, or to the people.

Certainly that provision has a meaning. With all deference to the Senator from New York [Mr. Javits], who proposes a statutory measure in the nature of an amendment, and to the coauthors of his proposal, and to whoever might have helped draft the amendment, I invite the attention of the Senate to the language of the amendment itself, which I think admits on its face that it has no constitutional base. I read now the language beginning on line 1, page 2, which provides:

Th a t the Congress finds that the require- · ment th a t a poll tax or other tax be paid, or that any property qualification be met, as a prerequisite for voting or registering to vote at primaries or other elections for President, Vice President, elector for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Member of the House of Representatives is not and shall not be deemed a qualification of voters or electors voting or registering to vote at primaries or other elections for said officers, within the meaning of the Constitu t ion, but is and shall be deemed an interference with the manner of hold i ng primaries and elections for said national officers, an abridgment of the rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, a tax on such r i ghts and privileges, and an obstruction of the operations of the Federal Government.

SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any State , municipality, or other governmental authority or any subdivision thereof, or for any person, whether or not acting on beh a lf of any State, municipality, other governmental authority or subdivision thereof , to levy, collect, or require the payment of any poll tax or other tax or to impose a prop e rty qualification as a prerequisite for registering to vote or voting in any primary or other election for President, Vice President, elector for President or Vice President, or Senator or Member of the House of Representatives, or otherwise to interfere w i th or prevent _ any person from regis t ering to vote or . voting in any such election by reason of such · person's failure or refusal to pay or assume the · obligation of paying any poll tax or other such tax or meeting any property qualification.

That is what I call a legislative fiat. I raise the ' point that Congress has no power to interpret a word in the Constitution. That is a judicial function. I deplore what seems · to me to be the too-oft repeated inclination, particularly in the past few years, to write long preambles or introductory chapters or forewords, so to speak, to bills, the language of · which is frequently very loose. Such preambles or forewords are later used in behalf of a certain interpretation of a bill, just as an advertisement for a book may be used in order to try . to promote the sale of the book.

We are moving a long way · from the simple, basic principle that we, the con- gressional branch of the Government, are given certain prescribed powers and limitations, and are told to act within that field of activity; that they are our ground rules, and we must stay within them.

\Ve cannot come here and say, as it were, that the football field shall be 110 yards long, when the rules provide that it shall be 100 yards long, and that the field of play shall be limited to that dis- tance.

What team can go on the field and say, "We are going to make a touch- down, but we are going only 90 yards; we will move the goal line"? Such a: thing would be ridiculous on its face.

I think introductions, forewords, and prefaces to bills are out of place. They beg the questi o n; they are out of bounds

CVI--l09

When we use · them, we · are o:ff limits We have no right and no power to go into those fields. We should have the self -discipline to make ourselves stay within the rules.

I deplore the fact that individual Senators cannot give more time and more careful scrutiny and attention to the bodies of the bills as well as to the preambles. That fact is illustrated by what is happening today in the Senate. Many committees are holding meetings of the highest importance. Senators cannot attend to more than one thing · at a time. We take up many matters and pass upon them without serious study or scrutiny, except that which is given by a few experts.

So we must take the words of the Constitution as we find them. We must give them their ordinary, commonly accepted meaning, with such additional meaning as has been given to them authoritatively by the judicial branch of the Government.

The words in these measures are a clever way of trying to get around article I, section 2, of the Constitution. so as to transfer the matter over into article I, section 4, of the Constitution.

The proponents of the measure are trying to escape from the point raised, that the voters for . r Members of Congress must have the same qualific-ations as are prescribed for the most numerous branch of the State legislature. They propose to say by legislative fiat that the poll tax shall not be deemed to be a qualification. I shall come later to the historical meaning of that word, I am raising the point now that the proponents of the measure must resort to legislative fiat to try to get around article I, section 1, of the Cons t itution. That is like saying that Congress shall have the authority to provide that the freezing point of water shall be 28° F., instead of 32°. That would be legislative fiat. The proponents of the measure are trying, by force of language, to say that the requirement that a poll tax be paid shall not be deemed a qualification, "but is and shall be deemed an interference with the manner of holding primaries and other elections."

The word "manner ~ ' is used in the Constitution. When a State prescribes that certain qualifications shall be met before one can become a qualified voter or elector, does that pertain only to the manner of holding an election? Let me make it clear that once a person becomes a qualified elector, he is clothed with certain high rights and prerogatives. I want him or her to be protected fully as a qualified elector. Once such a person has met the requirements, he is entitled to every protection. He is entitled to as much protection as the Constitution and the Federal Government can give him. That is simply a legal proposition, based upon the Constitution of the United · ted States . This measure fiirts with words and admits on its face, I believe, that Congress does not have the authority to proceed on the merits, but must resort to a )ligglinf:t of words or a mesmerization of words in order to get some semblance of a legal basis upon which to stand.

Let us look into the historical significance of that question. Is a land tax, as it applies to voting, unconstitutional? Is the payment of a property tax of any kind as a prerequisite to voting, contrary to the Constitution of the United · ted States? Or is the requirement that a voter own property of some kind contrary to the Constitution of the United States? Were not such requirements included in the word "qualifications" when it was used in the Constitution?

Let us see what the picture was when the word "qualification" was written into the Constitution of the United States, in article I, section 2. Let us see what those who framed our Constitution were considering and what was in their legal · minds as the leading political thinkers of that day.

I ref.er now to section 14 of volume 716 of the Senate committee hearings of . 1943, which can be found in the Senate Library. With the indulgence of the Senate, I shall consider the requirements of the various States which were represented at the Constitutional Convention. The · State of New Hampshire, by its constitution of 1784, required that before its citizens could become qualified electors, they must pay a poll tax. That . t fact is bound to have been within the knowledge of the framers of the Federal Constitution when they wrote this . clause.

At that time Vermont required that before one could vote, he must be a freeholder, which word, as everyone knows, means that he must own land.

At that time Massachusetts, according to its constitution, required that before one could vote-and let us remember that these provisions were written into the organic law of Massachusetts--he must have a freehold of an annual income of 3 pounds or an estate of 60 pounds.

The constitution of 1787 of New York provided that one must have a freehold of 20 pounds · or be paying rent of 40 shillings or have a fr . freehold of 100 :Pounds, in order to qualify to vote for State senator, or he must be a taxpayer or a free man of Albany or of New York City. · All that was a part of the material which was before the members of the . constitutional Convention. They had before them the words of the constitutions of the States I have named, and in this case, in particular, the requirements regarding what must be done in order to qualify as a voter.

New Jersey required an estate of 50 pounds.

Pennsylvania required that in order to vote, a man must be a taxpayer.

Delaware provided that in order to qualify, one must pay the State and the county some tax. I still believe that requirement is as sound as a dollar, in its common sense and in its logic; and the further we get away from some requirement of that kind, the further we stray from common sense and the more certain we . are to steer a downward course.

· At . that · time Maryland required that a person have a freehold of 50 acres of property or 30 pounds in money, before he could vote.

I found a memorandum relating to the situation in Virginia at that · time. The Virginia constitution did not require anything on this subject; but Virginia statutory law required that in order to qualify as an elector, a voter, a person must be a free man, having 500 a.cres of land unsettled or 25 acres of settled land.

The constitution of North Carolina . required a freehold of 50 acres in a county for 6 months before the election, and also required that in order to qualify as a voter, one must have paid public taxes. That is in accordance with the basic principle that freedom is law. a two-way street; that if privileges are to be had, then some kind of contribution or support or effort on our part is necessary. In such case in North Carolina, then the citizen might vote for members of the State legislature.

In south Carolina, in 1778, the requirement was a freehold of 50 acres, as the qualification for an elector.

In Georgia the requirement was property of 10 pounds or that one be in a mechanical trade or be a taxpayer. In other words, it was necessary to do something affirmative.

The other original States, which did not have constitutional requirements on this subject, had various statutory requirements regarding it, and all of them were along the line of requiring that one be a freeholder or have paid a tax on some kind of property.

Mr. President, I have discussed that historic background, in order to show what necessarily was in the minds of those who framed the Constitution and wrote into the basic law, in plain, elementary language, that one must be qualified to vote for the most numerous branch of the legislature of the State, before he could vote · for Members of the Congress. But once having met that qualification, then of necessity, by both State law and Federal law, such a per- . son would be eligible to vote in the congressional elections.

Mr. President, I repeat that we cannot by mere declarations or pious statements of intent and purpose or by means of introductory remarks to a bill show that the drafters of the Constitution did not know what they meant, or that they . meant something else. I • I would not agree any more readily on any subject other than on the subject that the people of the various States, through their respective legislators who know their problems, are best qualified and l;>~st prepared to pass on these elementary subjects; and certainly I would be going a long way if I were to try to tell the people of Maine that I know more than they do about their own problems. The same may. be said in regard to any other State.

Mr. President, inasmuch as this question was one of the most delicate and one of the most controverted to come before the Constitutional Convention, and inasmuch as those men of intelligence, · information, and learning were passing in a most serious vein on the vital question of who should be qualified electors to vote for Members of the House of Representatives, when they finally settled on the words "and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature.”

Cannot we be sure in our minds that they knew what they were doing and what they were writing? Of course, they knew. They were . not trying to write a new language or to give an imaginary meaning to the word "qualification."

Later, I shall be able to show that the word "qualification" runs all through the I repeat that those men were not trying to write a new language. They were trying to create a new government. They were prescribing one of the most serious tests which was to be laid down, namely, the test as to who should be the ones to be qualified to choose the Members of the House of Representatives. We know they used that word advisedly and with all this mass of information before them, and we know they used that word in a very practical meaning and in a legal meaning. The law was full of it.

Many years later, and merely because of some sort of theory or because we do not believe the payment of a poll tax should be required, can we in good conscience say that they did not believe that the payment of taxes-whether a poll tax or any other tax-was intended to be included within the meaning of the word "qualification."

As I see it, that is the only point of argument the proponents of this measure could have. However, the door is positively closed in their faces by the history of that matter and by its subsequent development.

Mr. President, to continue to discuss what was in the minds of the framers of the Constitution when they used the word "qualification," I now read, for the benefit of the Senate, the words of the New York statute.

It provides:

Every male inhabitant of full age who shall have personally resided within one of the counties of the State for 6 months 1m­ mediately preceding the day of election • • • if during the time aforesaid he shall have been a freeholder, possessing a freehold to the value of 20 pounds within the county, or have rented a tenement therein of yearly value of 40 shillings, and been rated and actually paid taxes to the State. . · Paying taxes, rated for taxes, owning a freehold. The books are simply full of requirements of that kind, which were staring these men in the face when they solemnly declared:

Whatever qualifications the State prescribes for voting in the most numerous branch of its legislature, those shall be the qualifications provided for voting for Members of Congress.

I should like to quote at length the actual statute in effect at that time in the State of Rhode Island, which pro- .' ·.:· ·• ·.h' ·:.· vided:

Every male citizen • • • of the age of 21 years, · who has had his residence and home in this State for 1 year, and in the town or city in which he may claim a right to vote, 6 months next preceding • • • and who is really and truly possessed in his own right of real estate in such town or city in the value of $134 over and above all encumbrances, or which shall rent for $7 per annum over and above any rent reserved or the interest of any encumbrances therein being an estate in fee simple, fee tail, for the life of any person, or an estate in reversion, or remainder, which qualifies no other person to vote.

Notice the word "qualifies." They are talking about qualifying, and they said a person could not use an estate, if the same estate were used to qualify someone else to vote.

By the same token, the Congress can- , not do that, because it does not have the authority to depart from the standards set up by the State for their own legislature. I agree there is a Federal right. Surely, it is a Federal right, and it is by force of the Federal Constitution. I do not argue that the States as such have · the right to fix the qualifications of electors for the U.S. Congress. The States do not have that right. They have the right to say who shall be qualified in their respective States to vote for the most numerous branch of the legislature. Then, when they have said that, the gavel has fallen, all time for debate has expired. The Constitution of the United States then, in these solemn words, comes along and says the Federal Government, the Congress, "shall adopt in each State" the qualifications and the requisites as prescribed in such State for voting for members of the most numerous branch of the legislature. When those electors vote for a Member of the House of Representatives, they are exercising a Fed- · eral right, they are voting in a Federal election. I submit the framers of the Constitution meant exactly what they said, and said exactly what they meant. Going back a little further, Mr. President, into the historical background, I desire to call attention to the testimony of a few of those political writers of that I should like to call as the first witness, George Mason, of Virginia, and ask him very brief questions on this point. I want to ask him if he is the George Mason who wrote the Bill of Rights. His answer is, "I am." I ask, "Now, Mr. Mason, what do you say about the Con- . gress regulating or altering the qualifications of electors?" In reply, reading from Madison's reports of the Convention, at page 386, George Mason says: A power to alter the qualification would be a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature.

Since the context shows that the subject under discussion was the National Government, when he speaks of the "Legislature" the reference, of course, is to the Congress. He says it would be "a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature."

I next present as a witness James Madison, called the Father of the Constitution. I do not know that he altogether deserves the title, but, at any rate, he was present and knew what was said and what occurred. Taking now James Madison's statement from The Federalist, article 57, he - raises this point:

Who are to be the electors of these Federal representatives? Not the rich more than the poor; not the learned more than the ignorant; not the haughty heirs of distinguished name more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune; the electors are to be the great body of the people of the United States.

They are to be the same to exercise the right in every State of electing the corresponding branch of the legislature of the State.

Mr. President, continuing in the course of bringing in witnesses on the question of what the word "qualifications" meant as used and the power of the Congress to go into the question, I now call forth one of the truly great men who graced the Supreme Court of the United States for almost 30 years, as I recall, the great Justice Story. He was overshadowed, in a way, during many of those years by the illustrious · John Marshall. But, in my humble opinion, no mari ever made a greater contribution, so far as soundness is concerned, to American constitutional law than did Justice Story. I have here a quotation . from him while he was discussing section 4 of article I of the Constitution, which refers to the times, places, and . manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives. He said this:

There is no pretense to say that the power in the National Government can be used so as to exclude any State from its share of the representation in Congress.

Of course, those words were used prior to the amendments following the War Between the · states. Here is the sentence in which I am particularly interested:

Nor can it be said with correctness that Congress can in any way alter the right or qualification of voters.

Of course, those words were all written after the Constitution was written, with the exception of the amendments following the War Between the States.

That brings to my mind this question: Suppose some State requires electors to have qualifications of various kinds which the Congress may think should not be required because of being too liberal or too extreme. Congress could not change the rule. That is what Justice Story said, and that is what the Constitution says.

I wish to proceed now to an actual case in the Supreme Court of the United States, Ex parte Yarbrough, decided in 1884, reported in 110 U.S. Supreme Court Reports, page 651. I invite the attention of the Senate to a reading of this case, and the other cases I shall cite.

Under section 4 of article I of th~ Cons · Constitution the Congress had passed a law with reference to the regulation of elections, and the petitioners in this case were convicted for intimidating a voter in a congressional election. The con• viction was under a Federal law against interference and intimidation. The law was uphel.d by the Court a8 being valid under section 4 of article I of the Constitution, and · the Court used the language I shall read from page 663:

If this were conceded, the importance to the general government of having the actual election-the voting for those members-free from force and fraud is not diminished by the circumstance that the qualification of the voter is determined by the law of the State where he votes.

That statement is merely a recognition of the law. No one disputed it. That is what the Court took to be the law. That was the plain understanding. This is the main portion of the case I wish to quote:

The States in prescribing the qualifications of voters for the most numerous branch of their own legislatures, do not do this with reference to the election for Members of Congress. Nor can they prescribe the qualification for voters for those eo nomine. They define who are to vote for the popular branch of their own legislature, and the Constitution of the United StatesThis is the Supreme Court speakingand the Constitution of the United States says the same persons shall vote for Members of Congress in that State. It adopts the qualification thus furnished as the qualification of its own electors for Members of Congress.

That is where the word “same” to which I referred comes in. It was in this Supreme Court decision, rather than in the Constitution itself. But the meaning is logically inescapable that it is the same qualification, and the Court in this case upheld the Federal power; the decision was not adverse to the Federal Government, and in upholding the Federal power, the Court still laid down the qualification just as clearly as before. I shall read the last sentence again:

They define who are to vote for the popular branch of their own legislature, and the Constitution of the United States says the same persons shall vote for Members of Congress in that State. It adopts the qualification of its own electors for Members of Congress.

It will be noticed further how the Court uses over and over again the word “qualifications.” All the way through the law, in the constitutions of the States, in the Constitution of the United States, and in the Supreme Court decisions, the word "qualifications" is used.

I have another case I wish to cite. I am skipping over old cases in order to get down to the more modern ones.

The next case was decided in 1937. It was the case of Breedlove against Suttles, found in Three Hundred and Second U.S. Reports, page 277. The facts were that a Georgia law imposed a poll tax on all inhabitants between the ages of 21 and 60, excepting the blind and females who do not register and vote. The State constitution provided that one could not register and vote unless he had paid the poll tax required. The petitioner sought to require the registrar of elections to permit registration for voting in the State and Federal elections without the petitioner having paid the tax.

Now let us understand the facts. The petitioner sought to have the registrar of elections register him to vote in both Federal and State elections without having first paid the tax. That case went to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was decided in 1937. The late Justice Butler rendered the opinion in that case. It was a unanimous opinion. , Getting down to the gist of his actual holdings, he had this to say, speaking for the Court:

To make payment of poll taxes a · prerequisite of voting is not to deny any privilege or immunity protected by the 14th amendment.

We are coming now to the question of the 14th amendment. It has been claimed by some that the adoption of the 14th amendment changed the picture. Privilege of voting is not derived from the United States, but is conferred by the State and, save as restrained by the 15th and 19th amendments and other provisions of the Federal Constitution, the State may condition suffrage as it deems appropriate.

Now let us get down to specific words. What I have heretofore read are rather broad statements. We now get down to specific words. Mr. Justice Butler said for the Court:

The payment of a poll tax as a prerequisite to voting is a familiar and reasonable regulation long in force in many States.

M:t:". President, that is the specific holding. That is the language of and the specific holding of the Supreme Court of the United States. It is not a dictum. It is not an argument. It is a direct and positive holding of the Highest Court of the Nation. It was the law then It is the law now.

Neither this Congress nor any other Congress has any semblance of authority, by the clever use of words and phrases and clauses, to change the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, or the interpretations of the courts and of everyone else who has passed upon these matters.

Mr. President, there are more modern cases. I do not desire to detain the Senate, but I should like to refer to one more case decided more recently than the one from which I have read, if I may be indulged a moment.

Mr. President, this is the case of Saunders against Wilkins, 102 Federal 2d 235, p. 237.

This decision was written by the late · Justice Dobie, a member of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Federal courts. Judge Dobie had one of the finest minds I have ever come in contact with anytime, anywhere. He had one of the strongest, most powerful minds, and could impress his thoughts upon other people I believe more effectively than any other person I have ever known. It was my privilege to study law under him for 3 years, when I was taking my law course. I owe him and his methods in the field of legal learning more than I could ever pay, and I am only one of thousands this truly great man taught. He stated:

The decisions generally hold that a State statute which imposes a reasonable poll tax as a condition of the right to vote does not abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States which are protected by the 14th amendment. The privilege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government.

That great man's fine words, boiled down into one short sentence, are the key to . the whole concept of our great privileges. I repeat his . sentence of his decision:

The privilege of voting is derived from the State and not from the National Government.

I quote further:

The qualification of voters in an election for Members of Congress is set out in article I, section 2, clause 1 of the Feder a l Constitution which provides that the electors in each State shall have the qu a lifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislature. The Supreme Court in Breedlove v. Sut t les, 302 U.S. 277, 283 , 58 S. Ct. 205, 82 L. Ed. 252, held that a poll tax prescribed by the constitution and statutes of the State of Georgia did not offend the Federal Constitution.

Mr. President, there are other cases, some of which are more modern, supported by great legal authorities and thinkers who endorse the conclusion which is incontrovertible , . as I have outlined it in a humble way in these few remarks.

Mr. President, I believe the authorities I have cited, as well as others which could be cited-:-and I have many more here-are conclusive on the proposition that the Congress has no power, and I do not believe has any inclination, to try to substitute a statutory enactment for the basic fundamental · provisions of the Constitution which have been so long in the law and so often reiterated by various Congresses, by writers, by the courts, and by practically everyone else. I have one final word, Mr. President, as to the constitutional amendment. This may be an election year. A person may honestly think that a poll tax or any kind of tax ought not to be required. Everyone, of course, is entitled to his opinion. But, Mr. President, if we are to continue to have States there must be certain things in which the States are to have a part. The States must have a field of activity.

The Federal Government is fast usurping the activities, powers, and prerogatives of the State governments. As I said yesterday, a fine lady in the District of Columbia, who was raised in one of the States, said to me, in all seriousness not too long ago, "Why continue to have States, anyway?" My reply to her was that if we continue to whittle away th.eir responsibilities, their powers, and their field of activities, their revenue, and everything else, we shall not have States very long,

I submit that in this Chamber, where every Senator representing a State is chosen by the people of the State at large, we should be the last ones to surrender . any of the powers of the States. This should be the first place where such powers are championed.

As I said yesterday, and as I repeat now, if there were funds available, as the Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL] very forcefully suggested to me, and if time were available, the proposed constitutional amendment could be used as a vehicle to carry a message to the legislatures of the 50 States, pointing out how, over the years, the powers of the State governments have been whittled away, reduced here, and chipped off there. We are now getting down to the very fundamentals of electors in the States, carving away the powers of the States, a bit here and a bit there. We could make the State legislatures vividly see the entire picture as it has developed, and let the people realize just what is happening, and how the powe r s of the States are disappearThere may not be any great interest in this subject at the present time. However, I believe that the turn · of events in this country will cause the American people more fully to realize what is happening in connection with the encroachments of a powerful Government, and the transfer of power and responsibility to Washington. I am not afraid of the Federal Government. Ho w ever, in the years ahead, the people will realize the trends and consequences. I believe that then they will rise up in disappointment, and partly in wrath, and th a t those of us who are responsible for th e se trends and for continually running downhill will not be heroes in their s i ght. Adjustments will come in the decades ahead. They may be exceedingly severe when they do come.

I believe the people of the United states have an abiding faith in their ability to govern themselves, and that they do not want the power and responsibility of local citizenship and State citizenship, or state powers and prerogatives, whittled away and transferred from them. There will be a new era, and there will be new thinking.

I do not suppose there is anyone who has the time or the money, even if he had the talent, to go galloping around to the 50 state legislatures, but this amendment could be a suitable vehicle, and now would be a fine time to outline the entire picture, so that the people and the legislatures of the various States could have before them an understanding of exactly what they would be voting away if they should accept the proposed amendment.

I do not wish to close without pointing out again, with all deference to other Senators, that I think it is absurd for the Senate of the United states to attempt to tie these two proposals together-one giving the Governors of the States the power to fill vacancies in the House of Representatives in the event of an atomic bomb or nuclear weapon attack on the city of washington, and the other dealing with the old question of prescribing the qualifications of voters in all Federal elections, which means all state elections, too. I think the two proposals are inconsistent. There is no real affinity between them. There is no real need for us to combine the two proposals and submit them to the State legislatures on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Such action would not only be unsound; it would be ridiculous. It would make us appear in the eyes of the people and of the legislatures to be committing childish acts in time of peril by merely coasting along and submitting proposals of this kind to the S-tates when we should be con.Sidering the serious prob ... lems of the country.

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

Mr. STENNIS. '! yield.

Mr. HILL. I wish to commend the distinguished junior · Senator from Mississippi for his most eloquent and able address.

Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HILL. The distinguished Senator s colleague, the senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], delivered a very able and profound address on the pending business on last Friday. It was his intention to address the Senate again today on the subject before the Senate, but unfortunately he is confined to the hospital because of illness at this time, and therefore is unable to be present. I, therefore, ask unanimous consent to have printed in the body of the REcORD at this point the address which the distinguished senior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ~ASTLAND] had planned to deliver at this time. · . .

There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: ·

STATEMENT BY SENATdR EASTLAND

A constitutional amendment is now propo s ed that denies to the States the power and the right to make three particular requ i rements as a prerequisite to voting in any primary or other election for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress. The three areas wherein the States are to be denied the right to impose conditions concern (1) any poll tax; (2) any other tax; and (3) any property qualification. While it is true that the Congress and the States have the right and power to enact not only this insignificant amendment but one that would transform and revolutionize our entire system of government, the exercise of the power does not necessarily mean that the pur . purpose sought is wise or in the best interest of the people. Remember this, while you can deny a right or power in one limited area today , other rights and powers can be denied to you and your States tomorrow.

The greatest single miracle that was achieved in the promulgation of the U.S. Constitution was the welding together in a republican framework autonomous and sovereign Colonies that gave to the Central Government certain specific and delegated powers and retained for themselves and the people all other powers, rights and privileges.

Students of government and political scientists from abroad have always marveled as to how a country such as ours could survive with the now existing 51 separate legislative, executive, and judicial systems. Our Founding F.athers made this the primary condition to the establishment of a Union.

Section II, article I of the Constitution reflects the fixed intention of the Founding Fathers to require that portion of the entire population . which should have the privilege of voting for candidates to a national office should be determined solely and alone on the basis of the qualifications of each separate State requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures. Francis Newton Thorpe, in his book, "The Constitutional History of the American People," sets forth charts and tables which show the qualifications of electors 1n the several States prior to, contemporaneous with, and subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution. These charts follow 1n the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this point,

"[Extract-s from 'The Constitutional History of

"Qualifications

State Consti- Age Residence tution

New Hampshire •••• 1784 21 Town...................

1792 21 ••••• do

Vermont •••••••••••• 1777 21 1 year in State

1786 21 ••••• do

1793 21 ••••• do

Massachusetts •••••• 1780 21 1 year in town........... New York •••••••••• 1777 21 6 months in county New Jersey ••••••••• 1776 21 12 months in county.... Pennsylvania ••••••• 1776 21 1 year in State

1790 21 ••••• do

Delaware ••••••••••• 1776 2 1792 ···2i· -2-.Yearsiiisfat"e.~~=:::::: Maryland ••••••••••• 1776 21 1 year in county Virginia ••••••••••••• 1776 2 North Carolina •••••• 1776 ···2i- -i2-Dioiiiiis·iii-cotiD.i'Y:::: South Carolina •••••• 1776 2 ------ --------------------------

1778 21 1 year in State.....

1790 21 2 years citizen of