January 29, 1960 (3)

This was because, in the words of Mr. Wilson, that it would be disagreeable to have two sets of electors, one voting for State officers and the other voting for Federal officers.

The proposal was voted down in the Constitutional Convention. The proponents .of the bill ask us to vote it up hy a. statute. They contend that although the Consti.tutional Convention said that the qualifications for those who are to choose the only Federal officials who are to be elected by the people shall be the same as the qualifications of those who are to choose the most numerous branch of the State legislature, we should now alter that prog;ram, that procedure, that policy. and should make the qualifications different.

The Senator from Wyoming [Mr. O'MAHONEYJ, in engaging in colloquy with the late Senator Bankhead. of Alabama, and the then Senator Connally, of Texas, made further observations which, I believe, bear repeating here:

Mr. O'MAHoNEY. The Senator is quite right, and that leads me to make this observation. In the light of the debate ' which I have already read earlier today it is clear that if the framers of the Constitution had wanted to make a Federal rule of qualification, since 1t is clear that they knew exactly what the issue was, they would have written it into the Constitution. One member, seconded by another member of the Convention, indeed tried to do that, and the effort was defeated, and then, as the Senator from Alabama has so cogently remarked 125 years later, when the people of the country were providing f . or the popular election of U.S. Senators, they decreed again that the qualifications of the electors who should choose the Senators should be the same as those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the respective State legislatures. There can be no question, it seems to me, of the meaning of the language.

The drafters of the Constitution, and the States, when they amended the Constitution to provide for popular election of Senators, did precisely what the Senator from Texas ~aid; they decreed. that . the Federal qualifications in each State should be those which each State adopted for itself. That is not only my view, the view of the Senator from Texas, the view of the minority of the Judi ciary Committee; it has been the view of every person who has commented upon the C.onstitution from the time it was written and adopted down to the hour when the sponsors of th . e proposed legislation undertook to separate Federal qualifications from State qualifications.

Mr. President, section 2 of Senate Joint · Resolution 126 provides that nothing in this article shall be construed t.o invalidate any provision of . law denying the right to vote to paupers or persons supported a.t public expense or by charitable institutions. This section of the proposed constitutional amendment poses problems; and I believe that if this measure were enacted, it would have serious effect on the laws of a. number of States.

The senior Senator from Florida, the author o . f the amendment, in testifying before the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee of the Committee . on the Judiciary, in the 84th Congress, stated that he added section 2 to his amendment for the reason that if the proposed constitutional amendment were to exclude property qualifications in general terms, the joint resolution might run into opposition from States which have either in their constitutions or in their statutes provisions which prohibit participation in elections by paupers or persons . who are inhabitants of public institutions and charges upon the general public, and that section 2 was, therefore, added to the joint resolution to meet that point. The distinguished Senator from Florida went on to observe that various States have adopted such procedures because it has been found that corruption in State elections has resulted from efforts to domi nate the voting of inhabitants of poorhouses and institutions of that kind, to the degree that such States felt it was important as a State policy to prohibit, either by constitutional amendment, as is found in some States, or by statute, the voting of public charges of that kind.

In connection with section 2 of the amendment, 1 the distinguished author of the joint resolution included for the record a memorandum, dated December 7, 1950, from the Library of Congress. While the memorandum from the Library of Congress observes that the pro· visions of section 2, relating to paupers or persons supported at public expense or by charitable institutions, would meet the possible objections of some States, it does cast some doubt as to the possible effect of this joint resolution on certain provisions of law relating to registering and voting in the New England States. The Library of Congress memorandum observes that the proposed constitutional amendment would possibly require new legislation in Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, where the laws relating to registration and voting are closely integrated with poll-tax assessments or collections. Rhode Island constitutional and statu· tory provisions reducing the length of residence required :for persons owning real estate would also ' be eliminated. Such . a provision discriminates in favor of property owners, disqualifying nonproperty owners for a year.

Mr. President, the possible effect that this proposed constitutional amendment could have on the registration and voting laws of the New England States lends further substance to my view that Congress would be showing better judgment by seeking the abolition of the poll tax, through action by the legislatures of the five States, rather than adopting a constitutional amendment, which could possibly create havoc :with some provisions of State laws.

Mr. President, I cannot help but feel that Congress should not be directing its energies and attentions toward a small minority of five States and should not be calling into play the constitutional amendment route of amending the Constitution in order to do away with the poll-tax requirements of five states. The Congress has better things to do, and matters of nationwide importance should not be neglected while the Congress debates a constitutional amendment striking out a provision of State statutes having to do with the qualifications of electors. In view of the language of section 2 and its possible effect upon the voting and registration laws of the New England State~. I suggest . est that, rather than muddy the waters any further, we permit the affected States to remedy the situation in the way that has been accomplished by the other States which have abolished the poll tax. Mr. President, let me say that I hope the Mississippi Legislature never will do that, but that is a decision for its determination.

I do not believe that the Senate in its wisdom should act in such haste in proposing a constitutional amendment directed at the prerogatives of five States of the Federal Union; and in the same amendment include language which casts a cloud upon the validity of laws of other States of the Union. Is it sensible to direct legislation toward the conduct of five States and in the same breath disrupt the laws of other sovereign States?

In connection with the possible cloud that section 2 of the Holland joint resolution would cast upon State laws relating to registration and voting, . and closely interwoven with poll-tax assessments, Senators should reflect upon the action taken by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on Senate Joint Resolution 25 in the 83d Congress. In reporting a similar Holland joint resolution to the full Judiciary Committee, the subcommittee struck the provisions of section 2 from the joint resolution. If there was then doubt about section 2 that doubt remains today. ' Mr. President, what has been the prior history of this proposed constitutional amendment?

In the 8lst Congress , the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, for himself and other Senators, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 34 on January 13, 1949. A public hearing was held on the resolution by the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on May 18, 1949. On

May 23, 1949, Senate Joint Resolution 34 was reported from subcommittee to the full Committee on the Judiciary. What happened to Senate Joint Resolution 34, Mr. President? On June 2, 1949, Senate Joint Resolution 34 was postponed indefinitely by action of the full Committee on the Judiciary.

In the 83d Congress the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, for himself ~d other Senators, on January 23, 1953, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 25. More than a year later, on May 11, 1954, a public hearing was held by the Constitutional Amendments Subcommittee on Senate Joint Resolution 25. On May 13, 1954, that resolution was reported from subcommittee to the full committee, with no action taken by the full Committee on the Judiciary.

In the 84th Congress the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, for himself and other Senators, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 29 on January 26, 1955. More than a year later, public hearings were held by the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in April 1956; and on June 14, 1956, Senate Joint Resolution 29 was reported from subcommittee to the full committee. The full committee, in its wisdom, took no action on Senate Joint Resolution 29.

In the 85th Congress the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, for himself ~d other Senators, on January 17, 1957, introduced Senate Joint Resolution 33. The Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments took no action during the 85th Congress on this resolution.

Mr.President, in the past 10 years the Committee on the Judiciary has had ample opportunity to consider and study the proposed constitutional amendment · which is before the Senate today. During that 10-year period the Senate Committee on the Judiciary could have, in its judgment, reported a constitutional amendment to the Senate for consideration. In this 10-year period the Judiciary Committee did not report such a resolution, and, as a matter of fact, in ,· the 81st Congress, as previously mentioned, the committee actually postponed further consideration of this proposal.

It is worthy of mention that each year that this amendment was introduced in this 10-year period it was always introduced at the commencement of a session of a Congress. Yet this time; it was introduced at a late hour in the 1st session of the 86th Congress. ·

I submit, Mr. President, that the Senate could well abide by the wisdom exercised by the Committee on the Judiciary in the past 10 years and refrain from taking any action ori. this resolution, but rather leave it up to the five remaining States themselves to take the necessary action sought by this proposed constitutional amendment.

I desire to advert for a moment to the provisions of the Mississippi constitution pertaining. t? the payment of poll taxes. That proVIsion is contained in the Constitution of 1890 and is section 243, which reads as follows: . SEc. 243. A uniform poll tax of $2, to be used in aid of the common schools, and for no other purpose, is hereby imposed on every inhabitant of this State, male or female, between the ages of 21 and 60 years, except persons who are deaf and dumb or blind, or who are maimed by loss of hand or foot; said tax to be a lien only upon taxable property. The board of supervisors of any county may, for the purpose of aiding the common schools in that county, increase the poll tax in said county but in no case shall the entire poll tax exceed in any 1 year $3 on each poll. No criminal proceedings shall be allowed to enforce the collection of the poll tax.

This section of the Mississippi constitution requires the payment of a poll tax without regard to voting qualifications. Every citizen not within the exceptions stated in the section is required t~ pay the tax whether he or she votes or not. .

Section ~06 of the Mississippi constitution provides for the creation of a common school fund sufficient to maintain the common schools for a term of 4 months, which common school fund sufficient to maintain the schools for 4 months is to "consist of the poll tax to be retained in the counties where the tax 1s collected, and a State common school fund to be taken from the general funds m the State treasury." It further provides that any county may levy additional taxes to maintain its schools for a longer term than 4 months.

Section 241 of the Mississippi constitution enumerates the qualifications of voters, one of which is the requirement that all poll taxes shall have been paid for the 2 preceding years, provided the person has had an opportunity to pay the tax. The $2 poll tax required to be assessed and collected by the counties helps make up the funds provided for the maintenance of the schools for 4 months Additional taxes collected by the county may include $1 per capita poll tax, which levy, with any additional property taxes the county may impose, goes into its own school fund. The State helps to provide the funds up to the amount necessary to maintain the schools for 4 months. Beyond · that the county itself assumes the burden.

Section 9744 of the Mississippi Code makes all taxes a lien upon the property assessed. Section 9746 makes every lawful tax a debt against the owner of the property or the person or corporation owning the business or profession upon which the tax is imposed.

In dealing with poll taxes, section 243 of the Mississippi constitution provides that the poll tax shall be a lien only upon taxable property. It would thus appear that there are no harsh provisions for the assessment and collection of poll taxes. The tax is required of only those who presumably are able to pay it without its being a burden. Persons above the age of 60 years are exempted as are persons who are deaf or dumb or blind, or maimed by loss ~f hand o~ foot. The tax being a lien only upon taxable property, persons not owning taxable property-that is, property above his exemption-do not have to bother to pay the tax. Persons who are denied the right to vote because of their failure to pay poll taxes, are persons under the age of 60 who are not deaf, dumb, or blind, and have not suffered the loss of a hand or afoot.

In the event the constitutional amendment were adopted prohibiting the States from making the payment of poll taxes a qualification for electors the ~eJ?-dl!leJ?-t would relieve no citizen of Mississippi of the obligation to pay the poll ~x. It is a legitimate and proper tax Imposed for the support of public schools. It should be kept in mind that so far as Mississippi is concerned poll taxes have to be paid by every voter regardless of sex, or color, race, or previous condition of servitude. All must pay it except those who come within the exemptions. There is no discrimination All a:re treated alike, as the payment i~ required of all. In the event of the enactment of this constitutional amendment, so .far as it affects Mississippi, the poll tax 1s a requirement for all within the class to pay. It would prohibit the payment of a poll tax being used as a requirement for voting.

In summary, it can be stated that our Constitution, as adopted in 1787 placed no limitations upon the power' of the States to prescribe the qualifications for their voters. However, since the adoption of the Constitution, two limitations have been written into the Constitution by constitutional amendments. The 15th amendment prohibited the States from denying the right of a citizen to vote on account of race, color, or previous conditiOn of servitude. The 19th amendment took away the power of the states to exclude persons on account of sex.

These constitutional amendments proposed to the people by the Congress and ratified by the States recognized · that there were no limitations in the original Constitution on the power of the States to prescribe whatever qualifications for voters they might impose. Prior to the 15th amendment the States could exclude from voting persons of specified race. or color, or previous condition of servitude. After the adoption of the 15th amendment, the States could not so limit the right to vote for those reasons. Prior ~ the 19th amendment the States could exclude women from voting. After the adoption of the 19th amendment the States had to treat men and women'alike for voting purposes.

Thus, despite the enactment of these two constitutional amendments the States are still free to prescribe whatever qualifications they see fit to require of voters, except that persons may not be denied the right to vote because, first, of their race, color, or previous condition of servitude, or second, because of sex. ~e~ are the only limitations presently existing on the power of the sovereign States to prescribe their qualifications for electors.

I submit that a constitutional amendment such as here proposed, which would deny to the States the right to make payment of a poll tax a qualification, would a far more disturbing invasion of the rights of the States than were the 15th and 19th amendments, because this proposed amendment goes to the very heart of the right of a State to prescribe the qualifications for all voters. The 15th and 19th amendments did not affect the qualifications of voters in general. They did not change the qualifications the voters had to meet. They did not take away any right . the States had to prescribe qualifications for existing voters; · but, the amendment now proposed · would limit the right of the States as to all voters. This would constitute a precedent for the Federal Government to take over all the powers of the . States to prescribe the qualifications of their electors. It is a step toward a centralized Federal Government at the expense of the powers and qualifications traditionally reserved to the States.

Mr. President, I submit that it is far more desirable to let the five remaining States which still impose a poll tax to act through their own legislatures rather than to have the National Government, through a constitutional amendment, whittle away the sovereignty of the individual States. .

Mr. President, that is all I intend to say today, but I wish to give notice that · , · .. before this debate is over I am · going to have much more to say on this question. I suggest the · absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. WIL­

LIAMS of New Jersey in the chair). The clerk will call the roll.

The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. HILL. Mr. President, yesterday the distinguished junior Senator from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] addressed · himself to the proposed amendment of the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS], which would seek to abolish, by statute; the poll tax in the several States. The address of the Senator from Virginia was ' so masterful and so destructive of the arguments presented in behalf of the Javits amendment that I shall address myself more particularly at this time to the proposed amendment offered by the Senator from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND], which amendment embodies a proposed amendment to the Constitution to abolish the poll tax.

There is far more at issue in this debate than the poll tax. Those of us who oppose the proposal to abolish the poll tax do so because of a deep concern for the Constitution of the United States and the preservation of our Federal system of government.

As we all know, the poll tax is a diminishing phenomenon. It is levied in only 5 of the 50 States. The rates are uniformly moderate, and its influence on the size of the electorate is too iilsignifi~ · cant to be measured.

Let me interpolate to say that the poll tures. tax in the State of Alabama is only $1.50 a year, and it cannot go back for more than 1 year. In other words, the full amount anyone might have to pay to vote would be $3. If he failed for 1 year to pay his poll tax, the next year he would pay $3, but the very maximum amount he would have to pay, even if he were in default for many years, would be only $3. The regular poll tax is only a dollar and a half. I emphasize that every dollar derived from the poll tax is earmarked for our public schools, and goes for the education of the youth of Alabama. This is a tax for educational purposes,

Yet we are asked to consider an amendment to the Constitution of the United States in order to deal with this so-called evil, which all the facts show is far more imaginary than real.

My opposition to the proposal is based upon three main points:

· First. An amendment further restricting the States powers to determine the qualifications of the electorate would constitute a diminishing of the States remaining powers and functions.

The Founding Fathers provided for the possibility of amending the Constitution, but I am certain that they did not envision the eventuality of amendments which would undermine the very · basis of our Federal system of government. . . I therefore believe that the proposed amendment offered by the distinguished Senator · from Florida [Mr. HoLLAND] contravenes the very spirit and philosophy of the Federal Constitution. ·

In the second place, · on the face of it it is unnecessary. As I have suggested, we are dealing with an artificial issue. At this time poll taxes are so rare and so innocuous that it requires considerable imagination to claim that they serve as any barrier to the exercise of the franchise by anyone.

In the third place, such an amendment is most undesirable. The use of the amendment process should be confined to pressing issues of national import which cannot be handled without changing the Federal Constitution. In the absence of such issues it is incumbent upon us to adhere as faithfully and as diligently as possible . to the basic document, the spirit, and the philosophy of our Federal Republic.

It will be recalled that in the early days, and for many years in the history of our country, many of our States required the payment of poll taxes as a prerequisite for voting. Practically all the States had some such qualifications. Some of the States had a much more stringent and burdensome qualification, namely, the ownership or the holding of property.

The poll tax came into being not to restrict suffrage, but as a measure to increase the number of eligible voters by substituting the poll tax for other onerous taxes and stringent requirements.

At the time the Constitution was being written in 1787, most of the States-at least 9 of the 13-had spoken, and had fixed, by their own constitutions, the qualifications of those who should vote for the members of their own legislatures. were those qualifications? I should like to sum up, in a few minutes, the qualifications which the original States, which · brought the Constitution into being, had themselves prescribed for their voters.

First, let us look at the small, but great, State of New Hampshire, from which some of the minutemen came in the early days, the State which gave us Daniel Webster. Before this debate is concluded, I shall perhaps refer to some of Mr. Webster's great speeches on the Constitution.

The men from New Hampshire fought the battles of the Revolution in order that the Constitution might be born, that the rights of the States might be safeguarded, and, most of all, that the power might reside in the hands of the people, and not in a central, arbirtary government. This, indeed, is what the minutemen died for-the boys from the hills and mountains of New Hampshire. What were the qualifications in New Hampshire? A voter had to be a freeholder. He had to own property; he had to own real estate. But the qualifications in New Hampshire did not stop there. They went further, and what do Senators suppose a voter had to · do? He had to pay a poll tax, the very tax we are discussing now. Voters in New Hampshire had . to pay a poll tax at the time the Constitution of the United States was being · written.

The next State in the list is the State of the granite hills, the beautiful little state of Vermont,' a State whose sons also played a heroic · part in the War of the Revolution. When the Constitution of the United States was being drafted, in order to vote in Vermont a man otherwise eligible to vote-in order to . meet the prerequisite-had to be a freeholder. He had to own property.

The next State is the great old Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, Dr. Warren, and the other great heroes of the Revolution. In order to vote in Massachusetts the requirement was that one must own a freehold with an annual income of 3 . pounds, or an estate of 60 pounds. One had to be a property owner in order to vote in Massachusetts. That State did not let one off with paying a poll tax of a dollar or a dollar and a half; a voter had to be a property owner.

In the great Empire State of New York the voter had to be · a freeholder of 20 pounds, paying rent of 40 shillings. He had to have a freehold of 100 pounds in order to vote for State senator. They seemed to prescribe a greater prerequisite for voting for State senator than for members of the most numerous branch of the legislature, which meant they prescribed a greater prerequisite for voting for State senator than was required for voting for a Member of the Federal Congress.

In New Jersey one had to own an estate of 50 pounds; he had to be a property owner.

In Pennsylvania the voter had to be a State or county taxpayer.

In Delaware the citizen ' in order to exercise the right to vote also had to be a State or county taxpayer.

In Maryland the voter had to be a. freeholder of 50 acres, or have property worth 30 pounds. ·

In North Carolina the voter had to own a freehold of 50 acres in a county, and must have owned it for 6 months before the election. It was also a requirement that the voter had paid his public taxes. If the citizen had not paid his public taxes he could not vote. In other words, he not only had to own the property, but he had to pay all the taxes on the property, and if he was in any way delinquent in the paying of his taxes, he could not vote.

· In . South · carolina ' the · voter had to be a freeholder of 50 · acres or a town lot, or he h a d to pay taxes equal to the tax on 5o ac r es. That is; - if the voter did not own 50 . acres, he · must , as a requirement for voting , have paid a tax equal to the tax on 50 acres.

In Geo r gia the voter had to own property in an amount of 10 pounds, or have a trade as a mechanic, or be a taxpayer. The State of Kentucky was not one of the Thirteen Original States. It was one of the · first · states · to be admitted into the Union, however, after the adop- tion of the Federal Constitution. It came · into the Union in 1792, only 3 years after the formation of the Federal Government. In order to be a voter in Kentucky, a citizen had to be a taxpayer.

In Tennessee, which was admitted shortly thereafter, a voter had to be a freeholder. ·

Mr. President, these were the qualifications of electors when Kentucky . and Tennessee · were admitted into the Union shortly after the adoption of the Constitution. ·

These were the qualifications the States prescribed respecting their electors when the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, when . the delegates from the · States were busy writing that document . at the Constitutional Convention.

Thus, in the debates at the Constitutional Convention, as reported by El- liott, we . find James Madison, who had such a major part in writing the Constitution that we commonly refer to him a.S the father of the Constitution, suggesting that there be a definite statement . of qualifications placed in the Constitution, and expressing the opinion that the freeholders of the countrylandowners-would be the safest · de- pository of republican liberty.

The delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew - what the States qualifications were, and therefore when they wrote into the Constitution that the qualifications for electors for Members of the House of Representatives should be the qualifications for the electors for the most numerous branch of the State legislatures, they knew exactly what they were doing.

They knew what those qualifications were in the 13 States. As we recall under the original Constitution Senators were elected by the members of the State legislatures. We also recall that when we provided in the 17th amendment, which was adopted in 1913, for the direct election of Senators, rather than their election by the State legislatures, there was written into the 17th amendment the same provision, name,ly, that the qualifications for electors for U.S. Senators should be the qualifications prescribed by the · States for electors for the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

. We must recall that in 1787 when the Constitution · was written the States were absolute sovereigns _ . They had joined in the Declaration of Independence. They had proclaimed their independence of the British ' Crown. TheY had fought through 8 lmig, terrible, and bloody years to win their independence, and they stood absolutely independent and f r ee from any .. other sovereignty on this earth. Their own sovereignty was fwi; complete : and absolute. · ·

So they gathered in Philadelphia iri their sovere i gn capacities, through their delegates, to write the Constitution of the United States. The question was, How much of their sovereignty would they yield to the Federal Government? The Federal Government was not in being; it had no existence; it had no sovereignty. The only sovereignty the Federal Government could have would be such sovereignty as was granted it by the sov- ereign States of that time.

Anyone who is at all familiar with the history of the writing of the Constitution, anyone who has taken the time to read Mr. Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention and what transpired in that Convention when the Constitution was being written, knows how jealous were the several States of their sovereignty and how reluctant they were to yield very much of that sovereignty to any federal government. · Mindful of their sovereignty, zestful and determined, insofar as possible, to keep within their own hands as much of their sovereignty as they possibly could, and still have a federal government . to meet the problems which had to be met by a central federal government, what did they do? They provided that every State should have two Senators-two Members in this body-no matter how large or how small the State might be, no matter . what its industrial development might be, no matter what its financial development or its agricultural development might be. No matter what might be the status of a State in its power, its influence, its ability to influence other States and other persons in other States, every state in the United states should have equal representation in the Senate, it should have two Sena- tors-its own two Senators. Then, as will be recalled, the delegates to the Convention went one further step, and provided that no State should have its representation in this body reduced or taken . en away from it without its consent. This meant that no matter how small . the State might be, how weak, how ineffective, how uninfluential it might be, it would have equal representation in this body; it would have two -Senators along with the two Senators of the most p _ powerful, the wealthiest. and the greatest State of the Union.

It was in this spirit of jealous regard for their rights and determination . to secure the primary authority of the States in the Government, that the question of qualifications oi electors was considered and debated.

When we consult Madison's notes we find . that there · were three schools of thought in the Constitutional Convention with reference to the matter of qualifications of electors to vote for Members of Congress.

One school of thought felt that . the qualifications should be prescribed in the Constitution itself. : The second school of thought feR that the qualifications should lie left to Congress; that the Constitution · should pro• vid¢ ' that · the . Congress should have the · power to prescribe the qualifications. Th~ third school of thought • . which, as we know ' so well, prevailed in the Constitutional Convention, was that the qualifications for the electors should be those fixed by the States for the most numerous branch of the State legislature. ·

That provision, as we know, is section 2, article I, of the Constitution of the United States.

We find in Mr. Madison's notes, as compiled by Mr . Jonathan Elliot, and published by J. B. Lippincott in Philadelphia in 1907, in volume V, page 385: Mr. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, moved to strike out the last member of the section, beginning with the words "qualifications of electors," in order that some other provision might be substituted which wou l d restrain the right of suffrage to freeholders.

In other words, Gouverneur Morris not only wanted ' the Constitution to fix the qualifications for the electors but · he wanted at least one of those qualifications to be that the elector should be a freeholder, that he should own property. So Gouverneur Morris moved to amend the proposal to write in the qualification that the ele - electors should be freeholders.

Mr. Fitzsimons seconded the motion. Mr. Williamson was opposed to the motion.

Mr. Wilson, who was also, incidentally, from the State of Pennsylvania, and was one of the ablest men, as we know, in the Convention, and one · of the ablest of the Founding Fathers, then rose to speak.

Before I read what the different . dele- gates said, I should like to call the attention of the Senate to the committee which proposed the provision in section 2, article I, of the Constitution-the sec- tion to which I have just referred-which is the section dealing with the qualifications of voters. The committee wa.S termed, in the language of the Constitu- tional Convention, "the committee of detail."

The committee of detail was composed of Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina; Edmund Randolph, of Virginia; Nathaniel Gorham, of Massachusetts, who was chairman of the Committee of the Whole; Oliver Ellsworth; and James Wilson, of Pennsylvania. John Rutledge, as we re- call, was offered a place on the first U.S. Supreme Court, and was afterward appointed Chief Justice of the United States. Edmund Randolph, we recall, was George Washington's first Attorney General. Later Oliver Ellsworth was Chief Justice of the United States, and James Wilson was a member of the President's Cabinet.

Where could there have been found at that time in all the world, or where could there be found today or at any other _ time in all the world, a committee of abler or more distinguished lawyers and students of government, or more capable political draftsmen than the men who ' constituted the committee which wrote section 2 of article I? Where could a more · brilliant galaxy of stars in th~ field " of ' statesmanship be found than these great lawyers, students of the philosophy of government, students of human nature, men of commonsense and wisdom, who constituted the committee which wrote section 2 of article I?

1 was about the read that after Gouverneur Morris moved to amend the committee provision leaving to the States the fixing of the qualifications for electors of Members of Congress, so as to require that the electors be freeholders, or so as to make sure that they were property owners before they could vote for Members of the House, Mr. Fitzsimons seconded the motion. Mr. Williamson opposed it. Then Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, one of the ablest men who sat in that Convention, rose and made this observation, according to Madison's notes:

This part of the report was well considered by the committee, and he [Mr. Wilson] did not think it could be changed for the better. It was difficult to form at,ly uniform rule of qualifications for all the States. Unnecessary innovations, he thought, too, should be avoided.

When I quote that language about unnecessary innovations, I come back to my statement of a few minutes ago, namely, that Mr. Wilson and the other delegates who had gathered to write the Constitution knew exactly what qualifications were fixed by their own State constitutions. So when Mr. Wilson was speaking about no innovations, he was, impliedly, at · least, making a plea for the qualifications fixed in his own State of Pennsylvania and fixed by the constitutions of the other Original States.

Mr. Wilson went on to say:

It would be very hard and disagreeable for the same persons, at the same time, to vote for representatives in the State legislature and to be excluded from a vote for those in the National Legislature.

All of us have many times been in polling booths to vote. We know that the words spoken by Mr. Wilson not only were true in 1787, but they are just as true today. Can Senators imagine the disorder, the confusion, and the uncertainty that would be thrown around the exercise of a right which is the most sacred right, perhaps, possessed by any American citizen-the right to the ballot-if there were one set of qualifications for electors for Members of Congress, President, and Vice President, and if there were another set of qualifications for electors of State legislatures and State omcers?

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, at this :Point will the Senator from Alabama yield for a question?

Mr. HILL. I yield to my distinguished friend from Louisiana.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. In line with the able argument the Senator from Alabama is making, he will concede, will he not, that the Congress does have power to propose, as a constitutional amendment, that the qualifications of voters be fixed by a means different from that used in fixing the qualifications of elec- tors of the State legislatures; and that if the legislatures of three-fourths of the States ratified such a constitutional amendment, it would be effective?

Mr. HILL. Of course, under the Constitution the Congress has the power to propose any lqnd of constitutional amendment-either a wise one or a foolish one; and if such an amendment, whether wise or foolish, were proposed, and if the necessary measure :were passed by two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, and if the proposed constitu- tional amendment were ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States, then, as the Senator from Louisiana knows, under the Constitution such a provision would become part of the Constitution.

Mr. President, while I do not believe that the very practical question raised by Mr. Wilson was the controlling one in the drafting of article I, section 2, those men, being men of commonsense, men with a keen, profound knowledge of human nature and the ways of people and of events, were undoubtedly persuaded by the consideration of how impractical it would be to have varying qualifications for the different electors. After Mr. Wilson made his statement, Gouverneur Morris, the author of the motion rose. I read further from Madison’s notes: · such a hardship-

That is, being a freeholder or the owner of property, because that is what his motion provided as a qualificationwould be neither great nor novel. The people are accustomed to it, and not dissatisfied with it, in several of the States. In some, the qualifications are different . for the choice of the Governor and of the Representatives; in others, for different houses of the legislature. Another objection against the clause as it stands is that it makes the qualifications of the National Legislature depend on the will of the States, which he thought not proper. · He was unwilling to recognize this right in the State. Mr. Morris was unwilling that this power should continue to be vested in the State. He wanted it -in the Federal Government.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, at this point will the Senator from Alabama yield?

. Mr. HILL. I yield.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Has not the freeholder requirement been almost completely eliminated?

Mr. HILL. Yes; just as has the poll

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. It is retained in some cases in bond issue elections.

Mr. HILL. However, as the Senator from Louisiana says, it has been largely eliminated.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Has that been done by action taken by the States? Mr. mLL. Certainly.

Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Not by action by the United States?

Mr. Hn.L. No: not at all by action by the United States, but by action taken by the several States, in the exercise of their own State sovereignty-just as I have said the poll tax has been eliminated in all but 5 of the 50 States, and that has been done by the States, in the exercise of their own State sovereignty.

As I have stated previously, the truth Is that today the poll tax is what we might term a diminishing phenomenon; and I have pointed out that in my State it amounts to only $1.50, and every penny . of it goes to the schools, for the education of our youth. ·

Then Mr. Ellsworth, of Massachusetts, rose and said that he thought the qualifications of electors stood on the most proper footing. Note this language:

The right of sovereignty was a. tender point and strongly guarded by most of the State constitutions. The people will not readily subscribe to the . National Constitution if it should subject them to be disfranchised.

He was arguing ag-ainst Mr. Morris' motion to make the ownership of a freehold a qualification. ·

The States are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people.

Notice that language. The Statesthe people back home, the people who gather in the State capitols, the people who go to the ballot boxes back in the hamlets, the communities, and the crossroads-"are the best judges of the circumstances and temper of their own people." Would anyone dispute that today?

Mr. Butler, a delegate to the constitutional convention, made this significant statement:

There is no right of which the people a.re more jealous than that of suffrage.

Thus emphasizing, fortifying, and reaffirming the idea that the determination of the qualifications of electors should remain in the hands of the people of the States.

After all, Mr. President, it is only by means of the right of suffrage that the people are able to maintain their power, their authority, their sovereignty over their government. If the people's right of suffrage were to be taken from them, no longer would there be government of the people, by the people, and for the people. ·

Mr. President, I shall read from the statement of Mr. Dickinson. He was a gentleman of rather reactionary views; but I think we should have his views, since we are studying this whole subject. Mr. Dickinson had a very different idea with regard to the tendency toward vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders of the country. He considered them as the best guardians of liberty, and the restriction of the right to them "as a necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes, without property, and without principle, with which our · country, like all others, will in time abound." He very strongly favored the writing in of a qualification that electors must be property owners.

In reply to Mr. Dickinson, Mr. Ellsworth had this to say:

How shall the freehold be defined? Ought not every man who pays a tax vote for the representative who is to levy and dispose of his money? Shall the wealthy merchants and manufacturers who will bear full share of the public burden be not allowed a voice in the imposition of them? Taxation and representation ought to go together.

On the question as to whether . a freehold or property ownership should be prescribed as a qualification, Mr. Madison, being a very wise and very · practical man, expressed the view that that might well be determined upon the question as to how such a qualification would be received back in the States.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield to my distinguished friend, the Senator from the great State of Virginia, which gave to the Nation the great James Madison. On yesterday, the Senator from Virginia made in this Chamber a speech which was so masterful that I did not hesitate to say that I felt that if Mr. Madison and some of the other Founding Fathers from Virginia could then have been in the Senate galleries, they would have been proud of the Senator from Virginia. So I take - pleasure in yielding to him.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, my kind friend from Alabama gives me praise beyond my just due.

I wish to commend him for the emphasis he is placing on two facts:

First. Those who framed the Constitution, in Philadelphia, were better prepared than anyone else to say to the ratifying conventions-as the Senator from Alabama has mentioned-what was meant, what was intended.

Second. Congress should never for a moment overlook the fact that we would not have had a Federal Union, under our present Constitution, if positive assurance had not been given not only by those whom the Senator from Alabama has named, but also by Alexander Hamilton that the sovereignty of the States would not be unduly impinged. ·

Mr. ffiLL. That is correct. I shall quote Hamilton a little later.

Mr. ROBERTSON. I am sure the Senator will. . Under no circumstance did anyone ever think about taking from the States the right to determine the qualifications of their voters. · They referred to it as a tender subject.

I very highly · commend the distinguished Senator from Alabama for his excellent service today in bringing this matter to the attention of the Senateand I hope those who have not been present will read what he is saying before we vote-emphasizing that we would not have had any Union if this right had not been reserved to the States. We do not know how long we can preserve the Union if the Congress usurps the function of amending the Constitution by an act of Congress, and takes from the States first the right to determine the qualifications of voters, and then opens the door for any change in voter qualifications a bare majority of a Congress may, for political expediency, wish to make in some subsequent year.

Mr. HILL. I thank my distinguished friend, the Senator from Virginia, for his very timely · and able · contribution. What he has said is absolutely true. The men who sat in the Convention, who engaged in the debates in the Convention, who engaged in the actual drafting of the Constitution, knew best of all, knew far · better than any who should come after them, what their intent and purposes were in writing the Constitution. As the Senator has said, we would never have had any Federal ConstitUtion, we would never have had a Federal Government, if the view had not prevailed that the qualifications of the electors should be left to the several States. The Senator from Virginia spoke of Alexander Hamilton. Mr. President, I am delighted he alluded to him, because in the 60th Federalist, Mr. Hamilton defended the Federal Constitution against the charge that it favored the rich. That charge had been made against the Constitution. His remarks on this subject are very pertinent to the issue before us. I now quote from Mr. Hamilton.

. The truth is-

He wrotethat there is no method of securing to the rich the preference apprehended, but by prescribing qualifications of property either for those who may elect or be elected. ButWent on Mr. Hamiltonthis forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the National Government.

Mr. Hamilton added:

Its authority . would be expressly restricted to the regulation of the times, the places, the manner of elections. The qualifications of the persons who may choose or be chosen, as has been remarked upon other occasions, are defined and fixed in the Constitution, and are unalterable by the legislature.

Unalterable by the Congress.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield to my distinguished friend from Virginia.

Mr. ROBERTSON. In other words, draft: we know the 13 States that ratified the new Constitution all had some restrictions on suffrage and most of them had property restrictions, as did Virginia originally. So the charge was made that perhaps when the new government would be formed it would move into that field, and that . only the rich would be able to vote, and that they would vote into power a government favorable to the interests of the rich.

Mr. mLL. That is correct.

Mr. ROBERTSON. Alexander Hamilton said, "Do not worry about that. The Federal Government can never invade that field, because we have left it exclusively to the States."

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct in his interpretation of what Alexander Hamilton said. That will be clear to anyone who takes the time to read his words. He said that the Federal Government will never invade that right, that it is a right left exclusively, as the Senator from Virginia has said, to the several States.

What happened, - Mr. President? · The Committee on Detail, on August 6, 1787- and, as I have stated, the Committee on Detail was the special committee for the drafting of - the Constitution—recom- mended that-

- The qualifications of the electors shall be the same, from time to time, as those of the electors of the several States, of the most numerous branch of their own legislatures— This, of course, is a provision of section 2, article I, of the Constitution.

What happened? When that committee made the recommendation, a motion was made to prescribe in the Constitution the qualification of - possessing a freehold; and that motion was voted down. - What was the vote on that motion? It was voted down by a vote of 7 to 1. Only one State voted for the motion, and that was the little State of Delaware. Delaware voted "aye." New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina voted "no."

Mr. President, the thinking of the men who wrote our Constitution is found not only in the debates held in the Constitutional Convention, but also in the writings of those who participated · in it .

We know that Thomas Jefferson was not a member of the Constitutional Convention that wrote the Federal Constitution, because he was at that time our Minister to France, but he was in very close touch with the delegates to the Convention. We know that he had no closer ally or friend than James Madison, Father of the Constitution.

We speak of Washington as the Father of our Country-which he was. I think we might speak of James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. I think we might well say that Thomas Jefferson was the great prophet of American democracy.

In Mr. Jefferson's draft of a proposed constitution for Virginia, the State of my distinguished colleague [Mr. RoBERTsoNJ, which was written in June 1776, while Mr. Jefferson was serving as a Member of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Jefferson suggested in his All male persons of full age and sane mind, having a freehold estate in (one-quarter of an acre) of land in any town or in ( 25) acres of land in the county, and all persons resident in the Colony who shall have paid scott and lot to Government the last (2 years) shall have right to give their vote for the election of their respective representatives. He proposed that language for the Virginia constitution; ' but, on the other · hand, when it came to the writing of the Federal constitution, he violently opposed there being any provision of this sort prescribed in the Federal Constitution. ·

I quoted a little while ago from Alexander Hamilton.

As we know, one of the greatest minds of that period, beginning with the War of the Revolution and coming on down through the Articles of Confederation, and the drafting of the Federal Constitution, and even in the administration of the Federal Government in the early days of George Washington, was the brilliant, profound, magnificent mind of Alexander Hamilton. Perhaps this country has never known a more penetrating or more incisive mind than that of Alexander Hamilton. As we know, Hamilton was . not a democrat, and I am using the word with a little “d.” He did riot believe in, he did not have faith · in, the capacity of the people to govern . themselves. He believed in a strong Central Government. He thought it was necessary to have central, arbitrary power concentrated in the Government in Washington. He went so far that many speak of him as a monarchist. Certainly we know that in the plan which he submitted to the Constitutional Convention he provided for life tenure for the Chief Executive, the President, of the United states. As I recall, he provided · for certain hereditary right&~ for many things that were ta . be :found under the arbitrary central power of. the govern- ­ ments of the kings and the monarchies of the nations of Europe.

Mr. Hamilton, writing about the Constitution-and we must remember what _ his feelings and his views were-had this to say in chapter 52 of The Federalist: I shall begin with the House of Representatives. • • • The fi:rst view to be taken or this part of the Government, relates to the qualifications of the e-lectors a:nd the elected. "The qualifications of electors.” He went straight to the very question we are discussing here today, because he knew what the whole question involved, so far as determining what our Government was, and what it would: be down through the years. He knew it went to the whole question of our dual system of government, the whole question of the structure of our Government, of a divided authority between the Federal Government and the State governments. The brilliant mind of Hamilton knew what he was talking about. He goeson.to say: Those of the former-

That is, of the House of Representatives— to be the same-

That is, the qualifications are to be the samewith those of the electors of the most numerous branch of the State leg is latures. The definition of the right of suffrage is very justly regared as a fundamental article of republican government. It was incumbent on the Convention. therefore, to define and establish this right in the Constitution.

In other words, the Constitution had to say what these qualifications were, and by whom they would be prescribed. Hamilton then continues:

The provision made by the . ConventionThat is the provision now written into formity. section 2 of article I- ·

The provision made by the Convention appears, therefore. to be the best that lay within their option. It must be satisfactory to every State--

He saidbecause _ it is conformable . to the standard already established or which may be established by the State itself.

This was the leading Federalist, this was the outstanding Nationalist in the days of the beginning of our Government proclaiming in his writings in The Federalist that this method must be satisfactory to the States, because under the Constitution as written it was left to the States.

Again in the 57th Federalist the question was ask · ed. And the writer · replied to his own question:

Not the rich, more than the poor: nor the learned, more than the ignorant, nor the haughty heirs of distinguished names, more than the humble sons of obscurity and unpropitious fortune. The electors are to b& t.he great body of the people ot: the United States. They are to be the s:a.me who exercise the right tn every state of electing the co:rresponding branch or the legislature fit . the State.

In the 5Mb Federalist we find this significant statement:

Suppose> an article had been introduced flllito ' the Constitution empowering the United! stAtes to regulate the elections fo:r th . e particUlar States, would any man have. hesitated to condemn It, both as an unwat: ­ rantable transposition of power and as a. premeditated engine for the destruction of state- governments?

In the · 60th Federalist, Alexander Hamilton expressed fear that elections might be manipulated in the interest of the "rich and the well born." The only way in which this might be done, he wrote, would be by prescribing property qualliicat i ons. eithe:r for those who may elect · or may be elected.

But, he added, this forms no part of the power to be conferred upon the National Government.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield to my colleague from Alabama.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Was there any su gg estion at any time of the requirement of uniformity in the States?

Mr. HILL. I said earlier that it was suggested the qualifications be written into the Federal Constitution.

Mr. SPARKMAN. I refer to the final result.

Mr. HILL. No. As I said, the suggestion was voted down by a vote of seven to one.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Is it not true that an examination of the statutes of the several States of the Union today shows a great lack of uniformity not only with reference to the subject presently under consideration, the poll tax, but also as to other subjects, such as the length of time a person must live in a State, in a county, or in a precinct; property taxes; and whether the person is a pauper? Some States decline to register paupers. ~any other things indicate a great lack of anything like uni­

Mr. HILL. The Senator is exactly correct. There were varying requirements to qualify one to be an elector in the several States.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Dependent upon wh a t the States respectively decided?

Mr. HILL. That is correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Each State for itself?

Mr. HILL. Each State in its own full and complete and absolute sovereignty made its own decisions as to the qualifications of electors.

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

Mr. HILL. I yield to my friend from Virginia.

Mr. ROBERTSON. When the junior Senator from Virginia made a rather exhaustive study 11 years ago of tlie various qualifications he found there was. a New England State which absolutely prohibited paupers from registering. I do not like to be invidious, about it, but I could name the State.

There was a. northwestern State. which prohibited those who believed in polygamy from registering. That · provision was no doubt aimed at the Mormons.

Mr. HILL. Yes.

Mr. ROBERTSON. .M that time they had not repudiated their belie:f, or the statute had not been changed.

Those are only two illustrations: many more can be cited to show that each State exercised the privilege left . to the States, and to indicate the wisdom of our Founding Fathers when they said, "We are not going to try to write any type of uniformity into this document; we will leave it to the good judgment of the States. not to. be unfair to themselves in the election of their legislators in order to penalize some Federal official.''

Mr. HILL. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me once more very ­ briefly?

Mr. HILL. I yield . to my colleague and friend from Alabama.

Mr. SPARKMAN. As a matter of fact, commenting upon the statement made ' by the distinguished Senator from Virginia, I have before me now the work by the Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, which all of us have seen, entitled "Qualifications for Voting.” I find that in it are listed eight different States that refuse to permit paupe:rs to _ register.

Mr ~ HILL. I thank the Senator for that contribution. We know that is absolutely t:rue. There were many differ- . ent qualifications which the States in . the exercise of their own sovereignty prescribed.