Изображения страниц

time, and the remedy is in its own hands. It can provide a more rapid procedure in itself.

Senator WADSWORTH. States are not on an equal basis to-day.

Mr. CADWALADER. They are not on an equal basis to-day.

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, might I say, apropos of your statement about Lord Bryce, that I am in favor of this amendment, and I can not conceive of any exigency which has arisen since the birth of our Government that imperiled the life of this country when you could not get a constitutional amendment. For a constitutional amendment to survive, certainly an analysis of it for three or four years will not be in vain, and will not be any disadvantage.

Senator COLT. I was merely stating it; I did not place much weight upon it.

Senator KING. I am very glad the chairman did not, because it seemed to me that is a very foolish argument that Lord Bryce aubmitted."

Senator COLT. And when the people want to change the Constitution, as they did in the case of the election of the President, they can change it by usage. They do not have to wait for any legal change.

But I have one question to ask this witness: In dealing with this joint resolution are you anxious to have this amendment speedily adopted?

Mr. CADWALADER. Of course, the proponents of any measure are anxious to have it adopted.

Senator COLT. Then why do you say that it should be ratified by the conventions held in different States?

Mr. CADWALADER. A matter of principle, sir.

Senator COLT. A mode that has never been followed by Congress.

Mr. CADWALADER. I would answer that, sir: As a matter of principle. Because those of us who have given this matter study and who have cooperated in this movement feel very strongly the principle involved, that the people of the States ought to have the say in really important changes in their Federal Constitution. I believe, and I think a great many people believe, that the alternative mode of ratification by legislatures was meant to be used only in minor matters, in corrections of details that might come up. Necessarily in matters like the change in the method of electing the President and Vice President that was made by the twelfth amendment, matters of that kind, or anything like a vital matter, should be referred by the convention method to the people.

And, in passing, may I say that that is another answer to the objection the chairman just made as to the possibility of getting speedy action. Congress could always get speedy action, even if all the States followed the action of Alabama and Maryland, by the expedient of submitting the matter to conventions that could be called and elected at any time. But, that is just in passing.

Now, our reason for preferring to submit this resolution to conventions, I recognize

Senator COLT. But are you not in a speculative field there? All the amendments that have been ratified have been ratified through the legislatures.

Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir. My answer to that is simply this, sir, that it is time that the American people should wake up to the real meaning of their Constitution, and an amendment to the amending article of the Constitution is perhaps the most vital and far reaching article in the Constitution, because it is the article through which the form of Government can be changed, and an amendment to that seems to me ought to be referred directly to the people in the method provided. And it seems to me the calling of these conventions would be a very great constitutional education to the American people, of which they stand sadly in need. That is my reason. I admit there are reasons on the other side. Speed of adoption is one. But personally I believe it is better to do a job right and to get all the good out of the thing while it is being done than just the making of speed.

May I hastily run over the other provisions, because there are three things? Senator COLT. Do you think there would be much delay? I want to get an idea of this, because the child labor amendment and a number of other amendments are pending, and if you were going to get a popular expression it would rather seem that this amendment to the amendatory clause of the Constitution should be submitted first so that you may have a popular expression in regard to the other amendments. But I am in a great deal of doubt as to what would be the practical effect of relying on this convention clause in the Wadsworth amendment.

What do you think, Senator Wadsworth? Have you thought of that?

Senator WADSWORTH. It is experimental, I admit. It might be that some States would not call a convention, or that they have no legal machinery at present for the calling of one, and their legislatures might have to enact laws providing for the calling of one and the method of selection of delegates and the qualifications of electors.

Mr. CADWALADER. That is true, and I can only say as to that that it is merely a guess, where the matter involved would have to be governed by political and practical situations.

Senator COLT. Would you have any objection to framing your amendment in such a way that it would be submitted to the legislatures of the States for ratification?

Mr. CADWALADER. Speaking only personally, sir, I would not have any very serious objection to it. The reasons I have given are all that I have in mind. I do not know how other advocates of this matter feel about it.

Senator COLT. It seems to me the amendment itself as introduced by Senator Wadsworth is exceedingly clear in its form and that it makes the least change in Article V of the Constitution that it is possible to make in view of the end sought to be accomplished.

Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir.

Senator COLT. It recites the old amendment with one word added.

Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir.

Senator COLT. And then it simply provides that one House of the legislature shall be elected and that if the State desires there shall be a referendum.

Mr. CADWALADER. Yes, sir.

Senator COLT. I like very much the form of Senator Wadsworth's proposed amendment, because it involves the least change necessary to accomplish the end of securing an amendment of the Constitution.

Mr. CADWALADER. Just one word I would like to say in closing, to just hurry through it. The last clause in this, "and that until three-fourths of the States have ratified, or more than one-fourth of the States have rejected or defeated, a proposed amendment, any State may change its vote."

Of course, there are two purposes to that, as it seems to me on studying this measure. One is that an amendment that has been defeated by more than one-fourth shall not be subject to being enacted by the process of its advocates hammering on one or two legislatures to win them around. I think that would be a grave national scandal. We will take a case that 35 legislatures have ratified an amendment and 12 have rejected it. Now there is one legislature in the country left to decide the question as to what the Constitution of the United Statse is to consist of, and you can just see all the advocates and proponents of that measure coming down and camping on the heels of that legislature.

Senator OVERMAN. Tennessee.

Mr. CADWALADER. It might be Delaware, and it might be Tennessee. I think there has been enough of that, and there ought to be an end to it. That is the purpose of that.

Now, the right of rejection is affirmatively mentioned in this amendment, never having been mentioned at all before. It has been recognized previously that a rejecting State always had the right to reconsider and ratify, and that has been done. It has been denied-not by the court, but it has been denied publicly by Congress, I think that a State that had ratified had the right to reconsider, even if the amendment had not already been adopted; but it has never been denied that a State that rejects has that right. Now, we are making it definite that rejection by more than one-fourth of the States kills the measure and makes it necessary that it go through the whole process again. Like a defeated bill, although it goes through one house, if it is defeated in the other, it has to go through again. The right to reconsider should be made mutual, and that should be settled. That is the purpose of that.

Senator COLT. Yes.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, there are two things I want to call attention to, and one is the joint resolution the Legislature of Texas adopted in 1921 requesting Congress to propose such an amendment as this. That resolution will be found in the General Laws of Texas, regular session of 1921, page 292.

The other is from Governor Smith's recent message to the Legislature of the State of New York on the 4th of January, in which he also urges the adoption of such an amendment as this. (Reading:)

"In view of the history set forth above on the question of ratifying the eighteenth amendment, I recommend the initiation by this State of a proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution requiring submission to the people instead of to the legislature of all future proposals to amend the Federal Constitution."

Mr. Chairman, the women of this country to whom the right of suffrage has been given have now an equal voice with ours, and there are many of us who opposed that amendment but who honor the women who are taking an active interest in public affairs under their new prerogatives and I am going to ask one of them, Mrs. Balch, of Boston, who appears for the Massachusetts Public Interests League, to speak to the committee.


Mrs. BALCH. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee: I am sent by the executive committee of the Massachusetts Public Interests League to represent them and to urge before your committee the adoption of this amendment.

We are a women's organization of over 500 members in 57 towns of Massachusetts and with associate members in the 5 other New England States.

We were made acutely aware of the necessity of this amendment by the betrayal of the people of our Commonwealth by the Legislature of Massachusetts of 1918 in the ratification of the nineteenth amendment.

In 1915 we had had a state-wide campaign on the question of the inclusion of women's suffrage in our State constitution.

So far as we know, Massachusetts was the first State in the history of the world to register at the polls a thoroughly informed electorate to vote on this question of woman suffrage.

You asked about the percentage of the electorate who voted. There were eighttenths of the voters voted on that day.

We had had 18 months in which to prepare, both sides, the suffragists and the antisuffragists, had excellent organizations and adequate funds, literature was generously circulated, and speeches given in practically every city and town, with wide and constant press publicity. So that when the voters went to the polls that day, only the mentally deficient could have gone uninformed. And the result was that woman suffrage was rejected by the largest majority ever given a constitutional amendment in the history of the Commonwealth, 133,479. Every county rejected the measure, every city and town throughout the State, with the exception of two small villages. And in spite of this, we had women's suffrage forced upon us by our legislature in 1919 by a very large majority both in the house and the senate.

The reason for this could be summed up in one word only-it was "pressure." What is the result? A sullen, indifferent electorate. I was told by a candidate for the United States Senate at the recent election that in a survey made for him it was estimated that but 20 per cent of the women of the State were registered. That is an unwholesome, if not a dangerous, governmental condition.

I want to give a bit of personal history on behalf of our New Hampshire members on the ratification of the nineteenth amendment by the New Hampshire Legislature. Before they voted I was sent to interview two senators, both of whom were by conviction against ratification, and had so voted at the previous session. I should be glad to give the names of those senators to the committee later. The first man said that he hoped again to vote against it, but that in the meantime his business had been injured because of his previous vote, that he had a family to support, and that he would have to be governed by the closeness of the vote, and that if the vote were close he would have to vote for ratification.

The second one told me that he was under very deep personal obligations to a man who wanted to run for the United States Senate against Senator Moses and who thought he could be elected by the votes of the women, and therefore had asked him as a personal favor to him to vote for ratification, and that he, therefore, was going to do it. I said to him, "I do not want to be impertinent, but I do not see how you sleep nights.' He said, "I don't, very well; and I wish I did not have to go down to the legislature on Tuesday."

If I remember correctly, the New Hampshire Senate ratified the amendment by two votes. But they were undoubtedly not the only senators to abandon their convictions that day.

With a knowledge of the increasing desire on the part of various groups to change our Federal Constitution, and with the knowledge that many of these groups are excessively radical, we believe that because of the recently developed system of organized pressure on legislators, neither experienced nor foreseen in 1787, the Republic, if it is to endure, needs strong and immediate protection from this danger. We feel that this safeguard can be found in the amendment under discussion to-day. Mr. WHEELER. There is another lady from Baltimore, Mrs. Leo H. Fallon, whom I would be glad to introduce to the committee. Mrs. Fallon represents the Women's Constitutional League.

30129-23- -2


Mrs. FALLON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: It is a little out of order for me to attend this hearing, and I am afraid I do not agree with Mr. Wheeler. I do not consider it an honor. It is rather a hardship to me. I have a very large home to attend to and a family. But, nevertheless, if we accomplish anything I shall then feel it will be an honor.

I represent the Women's Constitutional League of Maryland. My first interest in women's work was in a political club in my own ward, and I can safely say I represent those women. In fact, I think I can say I represent the women in my district.


In Annapolis last year every bill we opposed was voted against by every man except six, and our governor, too. I might say that all but three senators opposed the bills that our club opposed, and the general sense of the women in my city-I do not belong to those women who say they represent the whole State; I will not go that far, although there probably would be some truth in that statement-we have a constitutional league in Maryland and we feel that the only way we are going to accomplish anything is to go back to the constitution.

And, Mr. Chairman, when you cite the indifference of the people, I do not quite agree with you there. I think it is that the people do not have the time. We have always had great confidence in the men whom we sent to represent us, especially in the State where I live. When I came to Washington on my first visit the man who represented me in my district said, "Where have you been? These women have been coming to see me long since."

Now, has it gotten so far that this lobby of women is going to come to Washington, and will it be so that we will have to send the mothers, that we will have to leave our homes and come and tell the men whom we send to Washington what we want? I am afraid we will have to charter the whole Pennsylvania Railroad, because from my own ward I would have to bring-well, I couldn't tell you how many babies. In my own club just in the last few months we have five new babies.

I do not want to take your time.

Senator COLT. I would like to have you do so.

Mrs. FALLON. But I am going to read you the constitution that we have adopted in Maryland. [Reading:]

[ocr errors]

'Constitution of Woman's Constitutional League of Maryland.

"A league for the preservation of the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights of this State, and of the United States, in letter and in spirit, against violation, whether by direct assault or indirect evasion."

I feel if we stick to the Constitution as it was, and not as it is to-day-of course, we will have to accept it as it is to-day—and follow the principles of that we will not have to worry about what goes on in Washington.

Senator COLT. Why do you want to change it? Why do you not leave it as it stands? Mrs. FALLON. I am afraid, under the circumstances, with the busy lobby you have here, it is going to be changed, and I feel I love my home too much to continually be coming to Washington.

Senator COLT. Are those you represent in favor of this change?

Mrs. FALLON. Oh, decidedly.

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Chairman, it will not do to have the debate on the part of the men limited to lawyers. We have a business man here from Boston, Mr. Louis A. Coolidge, and I am sure the chairman will be glad to hear from him.


Mr. COOLIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I shall hardly presume to enter into a discussion which has been so greatly illuminated by such eminent members of the bar, because I am not a lawyer, and such little information as I have about the law has been confined to desultory reading of the history of the country and the development of the Constitution. On this particular question, however, I feel very strongly. I feel especially strongly because of developments in my own State of Massachusetts.

We had a constitutional convention there three years ago to frame a new constitution and adopted the compulsory referendum on petition of a certain number of the electorate for acts passed by the legislature. That applies to everything enacted by the legislature.

We already have the election of Senators by the people. That has been gained to the people; it has been taken away from the legislature.

So that now in Massachusetts the only question on which the people have no right of expressing themselves, and no opportunity to express themselves is this greatest

fundamental right of changes in the Federal Constitution. It has created a glaring injustice in Massachusetts.

Mrs. Balch has told you about what happened in regard to the suffrage amendment. She might have told you also about what happened with regard to the eighteenth' amendment.

Massachusetts has never been in favor of prohibition, either State or National. Every opportunity they have had to express themselves has been taken advantage of strongly and emphatically against that method of handling the liquor question. Yet, when the eighteenth amendment was proposed by Congress and came before a legislature which had been elected before the amendment was proposed by Congress, it was ratified by that legislature, not in accordance with the real feeling of the members of the legislature, because the majority of the legislators did not favor it. It was held up and debated for some time, and then-this was in 1918-the election was approaching, and I am very sorry to say that some of the men higher up in the party to which I belong the Republican Party, which controlled the legislature passed the word down through the State committee and through other channels to the Republicans in the legislature to ratify the amendment, so as to keep it from being a disturbing element in the approaching campaign. It was a betrayal of the interests of the State. It is the kind of a betrayal of the interests of the State which might happen in any State, and I think has happened in a good many States.

Massachusetts would not have ratified the nineteenth amendment, it would not have ratified the eighteenth amendment. I am somewhat in doubt about the seventeenth and the sixteenth amendments, although I can not speak with any semblance of authority. The State itself never had an opportunity of expressing itself until after the constitutional amendments had gone into effect.

Last year the legislature, under similar pressure, enacted a law for Massachusetts duplicating the Volstead act, and some of us did not like it, and we had a referendum on it, and some of us who had opposed the referendum originally in constitutional convention, of which I was a member, were very glad of the opportunity to use it at this time.

The question was carried to the State. It was discussed for the first time, and the action of the legislature was reversed and rejected by a majority of 103,000 votes. Senator COLT. Tell me how they obtain a referendum in Massachusetts. Must the legislature refer this matter to the people?

Mr. COOLIDGE. It is done on petition.

Senator COLT. That is what I thought. On petition of a certain number?

Mr. COOLIDGE. Fifteen thousand of the electorate have to sign a petition. On this particular thing we had something like 75,000 signers on the petition.

Senator COLT. On petition of 15,000 the legislature must refer it?

Mr. COOLIDGE. Yes, sir; and it goes on the ballot automatically on that petition. Senator COLT. Thank you.

Mr. COOLIDGE. Mention has been made of propaganda and the difference between propaganda at work on a legislature and propaganda at work on an electorate. There is just this difference, which has not been pointed out yet that I have heard: The legis lature votes publicly, each member is held responsible, each member is bombarded from all quarters, individually and personally. Mrs. Balch indicated one or two cases of that sort. We all know what happened in Tennessee and elsewhere. But, when you get to the electorate, you go into your booth and you vote as you think you ought to vote. There is that difference, and it is worth considering in these days of organized propaganda and highly paid lobbyists.

I have here very likely the committee has it in better form-a list of amendments now pending. It was prepared for me by Mr. Frank L. Peckham, a lawyer of high standing here in Washington. There are 71 pending amendments, and most of them are crank amendments-except ours.

Senator OVERMAN. If it keeps on we will have no Constitution.

Mr. COOLIDGE. It is approaching that very rapidly.

If the committee will permit me, I would like to have this incorporated in the record. Senator COLT. I would like to have it made a part of the record; yes.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)



[Introduced during Sixty-seventh Congress from March 4, 1921, to January 15, 1923.]

14, 21, and 40. Proposing method of amending Constitution.

44. Apportionment of Representatives.

47. Apportionment of Representatives and direct taxes.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »