The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
CLOTURE
AND
I N T HE SE N A T E
OTHER
SPEECHES
BY
HONORABLE
OF
R O B E R T l. O W E N
OKLAHO M A
/
? * * ( $
s
C L O T U R E
IN THE
S E N A T E
A N D
O T H E R
S P E E C H E S
BY
HONORABLE
ROBERT
L. OWEN
• OP
O K L A H O M A .
Robert T. Williams.
&&<■
C O N T E N T S
AFFAIRS IN MEXICO
ANNIVERSARY BIITH
1
THO. JEFFERSON
2
COAL AND ASPHALT LANDS OKLAHOMA
3
CLOTURE IN THE SENATE
4
"
( LIMITATION DEBATE).
5
"
( SAVING TIME ).
6
COMMISSION FORM GOVERNMENT
7
DEMOCRACY AND THE TARIFF
8
GOOD ROADS
9
THE PEOPLES’ RULE
10 -
14
POSTAL SAVINGS DEPOSITORIES
PROSECUTION LABOR?ANTI TRUST LAV/S16
WILLIAM LORIMER, RIGHT TO SEAT
17
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION, DEFENSE CF 18
RECALL CF JUDGES ( PONTIUS PILATE)1 9
A F F A IR S IN M E XIC O
SPEECH
OF
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K LA H O M A
IN THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STA TE S
M A Y 13, 1914
W A SH IN G T O N
1914
44915— 13387
SP E E C H
or
HON.
ROBERT
ON AFFAIRS IN
L.
OWE N
MEXICO.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I believe that many of the peo
ple of the United States do not fully appreciate the facts which
have justified the United States in refusing to recognize Huerta,
in demanding an apology, in taking possession of Vera Cruz,
and in massing its forces in preparation for dealing in other
ways, perhaps, with Gen. Victoriano Huerta. I feel impelled to
present some of the facts which have justified our conduct and
which would now justify the United States in demanding and
enforcing by arms, if otherwise unavoidable, the restoration of
“ Government of the people, by the people, and for the people,”
to the hands of the people of Mexico, and the overthrow' of
the cruel commercialized military oligarchy now riding the
people of Mexico to ruin and chaos.
When Victoriano Huerta usurped the presidency of Mexico
by military revolution February 18, 1913, he found immediate
opposition. The legislature o f the State of Coahuila passed
resolutions instantly supporting Madero (Feb. 19). This reso
lution made Madero’s death expedient to Huerta to prevent
organized support of Madero. Madero was killed (Feb. 22,
1913) at once.
It soon became obvious to Huerta that his only chance to
hold his power against Carranza and Zapata fighting for the
constitution was by exciting a war or some act of aggression by
the United States which would enable him through misguided
patriotism to rally behind himself the leaders of the constitu
tionalist movement. Huerta thought he could by exciting their
patriotism make them forget or condone his crimes in resisting
a common foe and thus get them to support his leadership.
From many quarters since last summer the authorities of the
United States have had reason to know of Huerta’s wicked
purpose against the United States.
Finally, when the unspeakable misconduct of Huerta’s admin
istration had not yet moved the United States to take any
aggressive action against Huerta, a step wras taken by one of
Huerta’s subordinate officers at Tampico wrhich could not be
overlooked or condoned. One of Huerta’s subordinate officers,
on the 9th of April, 1914, in all human probability instigated
by Huerta himself, arrested at Tampico a paymaster of the
U. S. S. Dolphin and a boat’s crew, all in the uniform of the
United States. Our sailors were unarmed and entered Tampico
to purchase some gasoline. Two of them were in our boat w ith
the flag of the United States at the bow and the stern of the
boat, and upon our own soil under the international law. Our
unarmed men, in the uniform of the I nited States, were then
44915— 13387
3
4
paraded through the streets of Tampico as a public spectacle,
subsequently released with an apology from the subordinate
officer and later with an expression of regret from Huerta. But
Huerta deliberately declined to salute the flag, under the rules
of international law, as demanded by the President of the
United States, for this international affront and indignity, while
he temporized for 10 days with President Wilson, evidently with
a view to obtaining a cargo o f 250 machine guns and 2,000,000
rounds o f ammunition which were expected to arrive by a Ger
man merchant ship at Vera Cruz on Tuesday, April 21. The
President of the United States gave Huerta until 6 o’clock
Sunday night, April 19, to make the amends required by interna
tional law. The salute was not made. On Monday, April 20,
the President of the United States presented the matter to the
Congress of the United States, and Congress passed a resolution
as follow s:
That the President is justified in the employment of the armed forces
of the United States to enforce his demand for unequivocal amends
for certain affronts and indignities committed against the United States.
Be it further resolved that the United States disclaims any hostility
to the Mexican people or any purpose to make war upon Mexico.
This resolution was justified by a preamble referring to the
facts presented by the President in his message to Congress o f
the 20th of April.
The Senate of the United States, after discussion, voted down
a substitute preamble to this resolution, offered by the distin
guished Senator from Massachusetts, as follows:
That the state of unrestrained violence and anarchy which exist in
Mexico, the numerous unchecked and unpunished murders of American
citizens and the spoliation of their property in that country, the im
possibility of securing protection or redress by diplomatic methods in
the absence of lawful or effective authority, the inability of Mexico to
discharge its international obligations, the unprovoked insults and
indignities inflicted upon the flag and the uniform of the United States
by the armed forces in occupation of large parts of the Mexican terri
tory have become intolerable.
That the self-respect and dignity of the United States and the duty
to protect its citizen and its international rights require that such
a course be followed in Mexico by our Government as to compel respect
and observance of its rights.
Those who voted against the amendment proposed by the
Senator from Massachusetts, I feel sure did not question the
truth of the statements in the preamble, but thought it unwise
to repeat these grievances for fear that it would lead to imme
diate war, as the preamble justified immediate intervention and
the President had not recommended intervention. The Govern
ment of the United States had been sincerely endeavoring in
true friendship to use its good offices to restore peace in Mexico
without resorting to armed force, hoping that Huerta and his
associates would consent to hold an honest election and restore
constitutional government in Mexico. This hope has utterly
failed, and in the meantime a terrific war is being waged by
armies of Mexicans fighting for liberty and demanding constitu
tion and reform.
Mr. President, I voted against the preamble proposed by the
Senator from Massachusetts, although I fully recognized the
truth of its recitations, because I very greatly desired to have
an adjustment of the difficulties in Mexico with as little loss
of life as possible, and I desired to hold up the hands of the
President of the United States in his anxious and patriotic
purpose to secure the adjustment of these difficulties peacefully,
44915— 13387
r>
if possible. But, Mr. President, I wish that the people o f the
United States and that the people of the world might know
that our seizure of Vera Cruz and our demand of Huerta to
salute the flag had behind it the most abundant justification,
and I think that the world should know what the conditions
are which have confronted us on our immediate borders and
which not only have justified our extremely moderate and
considerate conduct in this matter but which would now justify
the United States in demanding the complete restoration of
peace and order in Mexico and the reestablishment of liberty
and the actual sovereignty of the people of Mexico. The welfare of the whole world depends upon the establishment of the
ideals of the Republic of the United States, of “ constitutional
liberty and order and justice between man and man.” The peopie of the United States do not desire in any degree to control
the affairs of the people of Mexico, but I do believe that the
^ho United States very greatly desire the restoration
of liberty, justice, and constitutional self-government in Mex
ico, so that the people of Mexico can enjoy the rights of life
and liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and enjoy the fruit of
their own labors.
The President, iyi his message to Congress, said:
Remiblh? °O u r
S011^ ? 1 in anJ degree the affairs of our sister
itepubnc.
Our feeling for the people of Mexico is one of deeD and
frnYr/prf
' 1P’ ,? nd eTCryi hi n!F that ws have so far done or reK0in^ kas proceeded from our desire to help them, not to
hindei 01 embarrass them.
We would not wish even to exercise the
good offices of friendship without their welcome or consent.
The
people of Mexico are entitled to settle their own domestic affairs in
tneir own way and we sincerely desire to respect their right.
Mr. President, I agree with this generous sentiment and
I wish we might assist the people of Mexico to restore orderly
government without such enormous destruction of life and prop
erty. At present, in the attempt to establish order, a series of
daily bloody battles are in progress, with thousands of men
being killed on the battlefields of Torreon. Monterey, Tampico,
and so forth. The people of Mexico have no way in which to
express their opinion but by battle. They have no elections in
Mexico which deserve to be called by the name. The last elec
tion. of October 26, 1913, was a willful fraud and a corrupt
mockery o f the people of Mexico, engineered by a military oli
garchy, directed by Huerta.
Secret instructions were sent out from Mexico City Octo
ber 22, 1914, in Huerta’s interest to have the votes counted for
Huerta and to make the elections void as to the presidency by
returning a deficient number of precincts, which, under the
Mexican law. would leave Huerta as provisional President, and
this was accomplished under Huerta’s dictatorship.
Mr. President, the real difliculty in Mexico is the establish
ment of a commercialized military oligarchy, enjoying every
form of privilege and monopoly at the expense of the rights
of the people of Mexico, millions of whom are denied the rights
of property, of liberty, and of life itself. Under this heartless
organization the wages of the people are not suflicient to sus
tain a civilized human being, provide food and shelter, much
less provide any opportunity for instruction or for human prog
ress. It is the same condition which caused the great French
Revolution in 1789. The muraer in Mexico o f American citi
zens, and of Englishmen and o f Germans and of Frenchmen and
44915— 13387
r,
of Spaniards, and the wholesale robbery and destruction o f
property under the lawless conditions which have ensued from
this primary cause are merely details of an unavoidable result.
The usurpation and violence of Huerta, his insult to our flag
and uniform, are details of the egregious crime against hu
manity which this commercialized military oligarchy of Huerta
and his friends represent. The killing of thousands in Mexico
City when Huerta treacherously overthrew Madero is only a
detail of this criminal system.
Mr. President, the remedy for this condition is not from
the top down; it is from the bottom up. Liberty, freedom,
and equal rights are not bestowed by the powerful few on the
many as an act of grace and justice, but are established by the
many by the ballot, or, where the ballot is denied, at the point of
the sword. This was done at Runnymede, when the Magna
Charta was wrested from the hands of John. This was done
in France, over a hundred years ago, when Louis X VI and Marie
Antoinette were dethroned. This was done by the American
colonists when we set up the Government of the United States.
The common people established liberty in France, in England,
and in the United States. And this will be done in Mexico at
the cannon’s mouth, by the armies of the-common Mexican
people demanding the right o f life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness. My sympathies are with the common people of
Mexico. 1 want them to govern themselves, and I desire that
the United States shall give a friendly hand to those who seek
to establish constitutitnal government in Mexico.
They say that Gen. Francisco Villa, leading the constitution
alist armies, has been a horse thief, a bandit, a robber, a
killer of men. It may be true, for Villa was only an igno
rant, unlearned peon, whose sister was ruined by a Cientifico.
Villa, I understand, when 18 years of age, killed the betrayer
of his sister, and took to the mountains to save his own life,
in a country where the rights of a peon were little better than
the rights of a wolf. The hand of society was against Villa,
and Villa made war on society. But Villa, whatever his sins of
the past, is now waging a humane warfare, as he has recently
learned it out of a volume given him by an American officer.
Villa, at all events, is now demanding the constitution and
reform. Villa, at all events, avows his friendship for the
United States and its wise policies. Villa, at all events, has
taken his own life in his hands and is leading thousands of
other common men in the demand for the overthrow of the
usurping despot, Huerta, for the overthrow o f the entire system
represented by Huerta of a commercialized, military oligarchy,
and the establishment of constitutional government; and in
this enterprise I hope for the reestablishment of the constitu
tion and honest government, trusting and believing that neither
Villa nor Carranza, nor the men fighting with them, will ever
stand for the restoration in any other form of the evil system
which they are gladly shedding their blood to terminate. *
I wish to show that we are justified, not by our own griev
ances alone, but by the grievances of Englishmen, Germans,
Frenchmen, Spaniards, and above all, perhaps, by the griev
ances of the unhappy people of Mexico, whose liberties, whose
property rights, and whose lives have been, and are now. at
the mercy of an armed military oligarchy, led by Huerta; that
no man’s life is safe in Mexico, that no man’s property is safe
44915— 13387
iu Mexico, that no mun, whether he be Mexican, American,
Englishman, German, Frenchman, or Spaniard, has any safety
in his life or his property under the criminal rule of this usurp
ing military despot, who has declared himself vested with, leg
islative, judicial, and executive power over the people o f Mexico.
Until Diaz established his military control of Mexico and car
ried on a halfway benevolent commercial despotism there were
52 dictators, Presidents, and rulers in 59 years in Mexico. The
Encyclopedia Britannica on Mexico, describing the causes of
their difficulties, says that the—
CAUSE OF THE PRESENT REVOLUTION IS THE PRIVILEGED CLASSES VERSUS
THE PEOPLE.
It says—
Thenceforward, till the second election of Porfirio Diaz to the presidency in 1884, the history of Mexico is one of almost continuous
warfare in which Maximilian’s empire is a mere episode. The conflicts,
which may at first sight seem to be merely between rival generals are
seen upon closer examination to be mainly (1 ) between the privileged
classes, i. e., the church and (at times) the army, and the mass of the
other civilized population; (2) between Centralists and Federalists
the former being identical with the army, the church, and the sunporters of despotism, while the latter represent the desire for repub
licanism and local self-government.
yuu
On both sides in Mexico there was an element consisting of honest
doctrinaires; but rival military leaders exploited the struggles in their
huu mtoresb sometimes taking each side successively; and the instaJTas IMensilied by the extreme poverty of the peasantry, which
made the soldiery reluctant to return to civil life, by the absence of
middle class, and by the concentration of wealth in a few
s°
t h a t T,a revolutionary chief was generally sure both of money
and of men. But after 1884, under the rule of Diaz, the Federal sysv? name, but it concealed in fact, with great benefit to
* ? at u ’ i a
centralized administration, very intelligent, and
on the whole both popular and successful— a modern form of rational
I or lino Diaz’s reign was “ popular and successful ” in a certain
narrow sense. It exploited the great riches of Mexico, it estabmany monopolies, it maintained order by killing those
who dared resist the unsound system, but it eventuated in the
on y possible result of glorifying property accumulation and
making millionaires on the one hand and on the other hand in
the lesuH of reducing the mass of the people to abject poverty,
o Preventing the mass of the people being educated, of prevent
ing the mass of the people having a reasonable opportunity to
enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Diaz
regime or system magnified property rights at the expense of
and by minimizing human rights. The necessary results of the
Diaz system was his flight to avoid assassination and the suc
ceeding tragedies we have recently been witnessing.
The people of the United States are industrious and kindhearted, with high ideals o f liberty and human brotherhood,
and a resolute purpose not to interfere with the liberty of others
The great body of the people of the United States do not wislj
to acquire the territory now occupied by the Mexican people
and do not wish to exercise any political authority over them
or their affairs.
All men know, Mr. President, that when nations become in
volved in the violent excitement o f war, when thousands o f men
are killed on either side, and tens o f thousands are wounded,
and these terrible evils sending grief to homes in every section
are exaggerated, there spring up demands for indemnity and
reparation that would not be made in moments of more sober re
flection. If, therefore, the United States should be impelled by
44915— 13387
8
the unhappy conditions in Mexico to intervene, we should, in
my opinion, declare to the world that we will not, under any
circumstances, take any of the territory now occupied by
Mexico.
We should do more than this—we should declare the true,
plain, honest motives which inspire the people of the United
States in its present attitude. And these reasons should be
such as to fully justify the American Nation before the thought
ful opinion of the people o f other civilized nations.
The United States is already more than abundantly justified
in declaring armed intervention in Mexico, although the Presi
dent has not done more than he has deemed necessary to bring
about an adjustment with as little force and loss of life as pos
sible. I am glad that the authorities of Argentina, Brazil, and
Chile have been accepted as mediators between the United
States and the military oligarchy which has usurped the right
o f sovereignty of the Mexican people, although I am not willing
to appear to believe that any agreement with Huerta would
have any value whatever unless backed by a cannon or to appear
to believe he wishes an honorable adjustment.
It must be kept clearly in mind that our difficulty in Mexico
is not, in reality, whether or not Victoriano Huerta, who has
declared himself dictator at Mexico City, and who is at the
head of an organized army, pretending to represent the Mexican
people, shall fire 21 guns in salute to our flag. Our difficulty
lies much deeper than this.
Mexico, under the form o f a Republic, established a liberal
constitution in 1853, an abstract of which I submit as Exhibit I.
It will be observed that this constitution, in Title I, Sec. I,
declares “ That in the Republic all are born free,” and yet the
Mexican people are enslaved by cruel commercial and political
monopoly, and peonage is found everywhere through Mexico.
No man is really free in Mexico.
This constitution declares that instruction is free, and yet
the great masses of the people have had no free instruction.
And all of the other assurances and guaranties of the constitu
tion have been gradually ignored until no man’s life or prop
erty is really safe in Mexico. Fifteen millions of Mexicans
are substantially denied the right of life, liberty, and the pur
suit of happiness, and the bloodiest fratricidal strife has ensued
from this evil cause.
The constitution, in Title I, Sec. I, guarantees the right of
petition, and yet when the House of Delegates of the Congress
of the Republic of Mexico petitioned Huerta for protection of
the lives of the members of Congress, he immediately answered
this petition by arresting and throwing into the penitentiary
all the delegates who so petitioned—110 in number—on Octo
ber 9, 1913.
Title I, section 1, article 13, provides that no one shall be tried
according to special laws, or by special tribunals, and yet this
military oligarchy had killed and imprisoned thousands, in
cluding American citizens and consuls, contrary to the consti
tution. In the prison of San Juan de Uluo, at Vera Cruz, our
officers found 325 Mexican men imprisoned without trial, with
out accusation, by the Huerta military despotism, merely be
cause they were unwilling to enlist as soldiers to support this
wicked power. All of the personal guaranties have been ig
nored. Article 22 forbids mutilation, torture, yet the San Juan
44915— 13387
9
de Uluo furnishes overwhelming testimony of the violation of
this constitutional provision.
Article 23 declares the penalty of death abolished for po
litical offenses, except treason and murder in the first degree,
and yet President Madero, declared elected as the President of
the Republic of Mexico, and Vice President Suarez, elected
Vice President of the Republic of Mexico, were arrested, their
resignations commanded, under the threat of immediate death,
and they were immediately killed, and a false account of the
killing published to the world, and no judicial investigation
ever held as promised to the diplomats representing all nations
of the world.
Title I, section 1, article 28, declares that there shall be no
monopolies of any kind, whether governmental or private (in
ventions excepted), and yet for the last 40 years one monopo
listic concession after another has been granted, giving monop
olies innumerable to private persons—monopolies in agricul
tural lands, monopolies in grazing lands, monopolies in timber
lands, monopolies in oil lands—and it is an open secret that
the oil monopolies have given huge sums in substantial bribery
of the leading officials of the Mexican Government.
Monopoly has become so complete in Mexico that millions of
human beings, willing to labor, own no land upon which they
may labor. The same cruel and intolerable conditions o f land
monopoly described by Thomas Jefferson as existing in France
immediately before the French Revolution exist in Mexico to
day, and make revolution absolutely unavoidable— make revolu
tion absolutely inextinguishable until this crime against human
life be corrected and the right of human beings to live shall be
recognized and provided. The demand of the Zapatistas is for
laud upon which the peasantry can support life. These condi
tions have led to the war by Carranza, Villa, and the constitu
tionalists. This was the demand which Russia had to heed with
her peasantry—and from which was born “ Nihilism ” and “ An
archism.” It is the right of land to live on that caused the
unending revolution o f the Irish against their alien landlords
and the evil policy of government that tolerated and main
tained the system.
When all the land is held in the hands of the few, enabling
them to dictate the conditions of life upon the millions of
people who have no land, enabling them to dictate the political
conditions and to seize by force, by fraud, by artifice, and
craft the Government powers of the common people of Mexico,
and then to use the organized powers of the common people
against the common people themselves and against their inter
ests, chaos and ruin is the unavoidable consequence.
The people o f Mexico are enslaved, yet Title I, Section I,
article 39 declares that the sovereignty is in the people, that all
public power emanates from the people. And yet, the right o f
sovereignty o f 15,000.000 Mexican people is usurped by Huerta
and the military oligarchy that surrounds him. The sover
eignty of the people is supposed to be exercised through repre
sentatives honestly chosen in fair elections, yet the election on
the 26th of October, 1913, was a mockery. Secret instructions
had been sent out from Mexico City to make a false return of
the votes in favor of Huerta and to make the returns defective
in order to throw the presidential office in the hands o f the Con
gress elected as of that date, the preceding Congress being still
44915— 13387--------2
10
incarcerated in the penitentiary by Huerta’s order. I submit
the names of those still confined in the penitentiary November
15, 1913.
Members of the Mexican Congress put in the penitentiary
by Victoriano Huerta on October 10 for having dared to pass
a resolution to investigate the sudden disappearance of Senator
Dominguez, of Chiapas, and demanding safeguard of their own
lives by Huerta and still incarcerated on November 13, 1913:
41. Sr. Manuel Antonio.
1. Sr. Guillermo Krauss.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
11.
15.
16.
17.
20.
21 .
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Sr.
Miguel Santa Cruz.
PrOspero A. Blanco.
Miguel Campuzano.
Roberto M. Contreras.
Salvador Rodriguez.
Juan Palomares Gonzalez.
M6nico Rangel.
Rosallo Anguiano.
Manuel S. Nunez.
Alberto Cravioto.
Francisco Lazcano.
Juan Urda Avendafio.
J. Luz Pena.
Saloma Torres.
Santos Ramirez.
Maximiano Galeana.
German Malpica
Ellas Sedano.
Severino Reyes.
Juan Rosas.
.Tos<5 Antero Garcia.
Fernando Erquiaga.
Tadeo G6mez.
Antonio Rodriguez Ortiz.
Ponciano Ramirez.
Rbmulo Carpio
Miguel Millftn.
David Vallejo.
Antolln Mendiz&bal.
Angel Loera.
Jos6 Loera.
Florentino I. LApez.
Juan Barrera.
Nazario Arredondo.
Teodomiro Ilernftndez.
Manuel Cabrera.
T6ofilo Velfizquez.
Pablo Bello.
Ignacio Garcia.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
Sr. Federico Oliveros.
Sr. Faustino Gonzfilez.
Sr. Jestis Santill&n.
Sr. Martin Santiago.
Sr. NicolSs Basilio.
Sr. Francisco Tolentino.
Sr. Guadalupe Mendoza.
Sr. Manuel Chftvez.
Sr. Ram6n Pacheco.
Sr. Modesto Pacheco.
Sr. Vincente Canales.
Sr. Rafael Pacheco.
Sr. Pedro Banos.
Sr. Jestis Banos.
Sr. Manuel Martinez, 1st.
Sr. Manuel Martinez, 2d.
Sr. Arcadio Martinez.
Sr. Jos6 Soto.
Sr. Juan San Agustln.
Sr. Manual San Agustln.
Sr. Rosario Huerta.
Sr. Librado Heredia.
Sr. J. Angel Gonzalez.
Sr. Dionisio Carrifin.
Sr. Alfonso Castaneda.
Sr. Adolfo Osorno.
Sr. Miguel M . Torres.
Sr. Liborio Torres.
Sr. Francisco Pineda Rub6n.
Sr. Francisco Lu - (Chino, invaiido de una pierna).
Sr. Jestis Pulido Cavares (invaiido de las dos piernas).
Sr. Gabriel Martinez.
Sr. Angel Silva.
Sr. Cosme Davila.
Sr. Margarito Balderas.
Sr. Fausto Herrero.
Sr. Salvador Acosta.
Many of these men were still in the penitentiary when the
United States seized Yera Cruz April 20, 1914.
By Title I, section 3, foreigners have the same guaranties of
life, liberty, and the possession o f property. Yet large num
bers o f foreigners have been killed without any adjustment or
diplomatic settlement being made, and hundreds of millions of
property belonging to foreigners have been impaired, de
stroyed, or taken without compensation.
All nations should be patient with another nation torn by
civil strife, and where the constituted authorities are doing
what they can to establish order and justice; but Huerta’s
own evil conduct is the cause of these disorders in Mexico.
The constitution o f Mexico divides the powers o f government
into legislative, executive, and judicial, yet Huerta, on the
10th of October, 1913, destroyed the legislative branch and
threw the Congress in the penitentiary by military force, in
vested himself by decree with legislative power and with
judicial power, in open and flagrant violation o f the constitu
tion which he had sworn to support.
44915— 13387
11
Mr. President, Mexico is upon our immediate borders; our
boundary line touches Mexico for near 2.000 miles.
Upon the invitation of the constitution of Mexico, very many
thousands of our citizens, who are entitled to the protection
of this Government, entered Mexico and invested hundreds of
millions of property. Their property has been despoiled, their
lives have been taken without redress, and now they are
all fleeing or fled from Mexico for the purpose of saving life
itself and we, responsible to them and for them before the
whole world, with abundant power to protect them, stand face
to face with a military despot whose conduct has made their
flight imperative, but whose conduct against them and against
us is a mild offense compared to his crime against the com
mon people of Mexico, whose Government, such as it was, he
overthrew by military force and usurped on the 18th of Feb
ruary, 1913.
We all remember, Mr. President, his boastful telegram to
President Taft. February 19, 1913, that he had overthrown the
Mexican Government.
Huerta has been trying to unite behind himself all the revo- '
lutionary forces of Mexico, and in order to accomplish that, he
has been*trying to force the United States to an invasion of
Mexico. He was openly charged with this on the floor of the
Mexican Senate by Senator Dominguez, senator from Chiapas,
on the 23d of September, 1913. He wished to cause interven
tion in a form sufficiently mild that he could use the invasion
as an appeal to the patriotism of the Mexican military leaders
of all revolutionary factions and secure their cooperation with
out having intervention go so far as to capture Mexico City
and compel a restoration of order and the reestablishment of
the power of the common people of Mexico in the exercise of
their acknowledged constitutional sovereignty. He would, how
ever, much prefer being a prisoner of the United States than
being prisoner of Villa or Zapata, both of whom have sworn
his death for treason.
Mr. President, the United States would be justified in inter
vening for the purpose of protecting the rights of life and
property of American citizens in Mexico. The United States
would be justified in protecting the rights o f Englishmen, Ger
mans, Frenchmen, and Spaniards, whose Governments look to
us for their protection. The United States would be justified,
in order to end the bloody fratricidal strife and restore order
and peace and constitutional government on our border.
Mr. President, the United States has borne repeated injuries
week after week, month after month, and year after year await
ing diplomatic adjustment, until at last, in lieu of adjusting
these immediate grievances which are of record in our Depart
ment of State and which 1 shall not pause to enumerate as they
would fill a volume of themselves, it finally comes to the point
where Huerta, with growing indifference and contempt for the
rights of the American people, and in view of saving his own
life by forced American intervention, permits— if he did not
instigate— an international insult to the flag and uniform of the
United States, and then refused redress under the rules of
international law.
The world should understand that while the United States
regards the insult to its flag and uniform with great gravity
and is justified in demanding proper amends for this open
44915— 13387
affront and indignity before the eyes of the world, neverthe
less beyond the flag incident is a long series of grievances which
the United States has been trying in vain to adjust by diplo
matic process. And the world should understand further that
the killing o f our citizens in Mexico, the destruction of the
property of our citizens in Mexico, the killing of Germans and
Englishmen and Spaniards in Mexico, and the destruction of
their property, for whose adjustment the United States is held
morally responsible and for which the United States has anx
iously desired a settlement as the nearest friend of the people of
Mexico, are all factors in determining the attitude of the people
of the United States.
The world should remember that this multitude of individual
grievances, which has been impossible of adjustment, is due to
an unstable condition of government in M exico; that the
unhappy people of Mexico, judged by their own constitution,
have no government; that all constitutional guaranties in the
country under the military control of Huerta have been over
thrown; that the constitution of Mexico has been tranmpled in
the dust by military power, by treason, by murder; and that
the instances of which we complain—o f the murder of our citi
zens and of the citizens of other nations and the destruction of
their property—will be indefinitely continued until a stable form
o f government is established in Mexico. The whole civilized
world has a right to complain at the ruinous slavery imposed
upon the people of Mexico by the monopolies which have in
vaded Mexico in defiance of the constitution of Mexico—monop
olies in land, minerals, timber, water powers, government sup
plies, down to monopolies in gambling and female prostitution—
granted to a favored few who by bribery and corruption have
secured these favors from the dishonest officials who have mis
governed Mexico under the form of a Republic but in sober truth
as a commercialized military oligarchy during the last 40 years.
This criminal oligarchy has not been content with establish
ing a monopoly of all the opportunities of making a living by
the labor of men— it has not been content with the commercial
slavery of the people of Mexico and reducing them to peonage,
but through the commercial and financial power they have
established a corrupt political monopoly of the governing
powers which they have concentrated in Mexico City. The
power of the sovereign States of Mexico has been invaded, so
that Huerta, as the President o f Mexico, has not hesitated to
set aside governors elected by the people and in their places
put military governors. And while title 3 declares the su
preme power o f the federation as divided for its exercise into
legislative, executive, and judicial, and that never can two or
more of these powers be united in one person or corporation,
nor the legislative power be vested in one individual, Huerta,
by his own decree of October 10, 1913, vested in his one person
legislative, executive, and judicial power in flat violation o f the
constitution o f the people of Mexico.
Mr. President, the real basis of all the difficulties in Mexico
is the stealing from the people of Mexico their constitutional
rights and retaining the stolen goods by military force. The
real difficulty in Mexico is the usurpation o f the power of the
common people o f Mexico by a military oligarchy, pretending
to represent the people. Under such conditions there is the
absolute certainty that no change from one dictator to another
44915— 13387
13
dictator will provide any true remedy so long as the head of
this military group, whether Porfirio Diaz, De la Barra, Madero,
Lascurain (who was president for a few minutes), or Huerta
or the next successful general belonging to Huerta’s group who
arrests him and puts him to death will cure the evil in Mexico.
The real remedy required in Mexico is to restore to the hands
of the people of Mexico their right of self-government, to de
mand a secret, honest election system, decentralization of power,
restoration to the several States of Mexico of the right to man
age .their own business in their own way under the constitution
of Mexico. A constitutional convention is necessary in Mexico
to decentralize its powers and to enable the people to exercise
safeguarded self-government and to abolish by law the mo
nopolies which have reduced to abject poverty 15,000,000
Mexicans and given stupendous wealth to a few thousand
families in Mexico.
I have the faith to believe that the people of Mexico will pass
the proper laws for their own protection and for the overthrow
of monopoiy if they are given an opportunity and that they will
establish laws based upon economic and political justice, just '
as the people of France did.
P M n I a a tlie fishwomen of France, it was the peasantry of
TCvon06’
Wf S 3t le uneducated, unlearned, common herd in
despised by the nobility of France, who sang the
™
** .lhe streets of Paris- and who deposed Louis
<
i itue Antoinette and established in France a Government,
that recognized the great principles of the French Revolu
tion-liberty, equality, fraternity; and the same spirit is in
n° w- These people are willing to lay down their lives
toi liberty, and they are sacrificing their lives wholesale, and
they must not be despised,
I know that there have been those who, observing the milinnmnde-1,° v im. 1tliat has been Parading in Mexico as a Reand liairfiHnVUiat tbe People of that country are ignorant
Pin
bl? t haVG- no fears for tl!e People of Mexico.
; ,^.r- President, I remind you and I remind the Senate
that this commercialized military oligarchy made e ^ r v effort
to establish an alliance with Japan f t « tln“ w h e n « were
hjving difficulty with Japan over the California case
Such
an alliance would bring in its train the most serious conse
quences for the United States. To permit on our borders such
an irresponsble Government as that of Huerta, controlled
merely by corrupt avarice and ambition, carries with it danger
to the welfare of the people of the United States far greater
than the danger involved in now throwing Huerta out of power
Mexico. Have we forgotten his invitation to the officers
or the Japanese vessel Idzuma, his week of feasting and osten
tatious demonstration of excessive affection for the Japanese,
at a time when he was stirring the passion and prejudice of
the populace of Mexico against the American people?
When the people of Mexico really govern Mexico, under con
stitutional _ safeguards, just as our people in the 48 States
govern their affairs, there will be no danger whatever from the
Mexican Government. They will be our friends, knowing that
we are in truth the friends of the Mexican people. Moreover,
m intervening in Mexico for the establishment of peace, for the
pacification o f that unhappy country, for the restoration of
order, for the reestablishment o f liberty and for that purpose
44915— 13387
14
alone; when we declare to the people of the whole world that
we have no desire to acquire any part o f the territory of
Mexico, that we do not wish to govern them, but only wish that
they shall have the right in peace, in honor, in dignity, to
govern themselves, by choosing their own officials in safe
guarded, honest elections, we will do more than make a lasting
friend o f the people of Mexico; we will give the most satisfy
ing assurances to all of the South American Republics of the
uprightness of our purposes. We will thus assure every coun
try on the Western Hemisphere that we are moved alone by
purposes of unseltish humanity; we will set the standard before
the whole world o f a high purpose to maintain the right of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and to promote the
great principle o f the brotherhood o f man.
Our great Republic is founded on the ideal of human liberty,
on the idea of freedom.
Over the magnificent entrance o f Union Station in our Capi
tal, where tens of thousands pass, is inscribed in granite this
noble sentiment:
Sweetener of hut and of hall,
Bringer of life out of naught,
Freedom, oh ! fairest of all
The daughters of time and of thought.
On our gold and silver coins, from 1795 to this day, we have
st.imped the word “ liberty,” and the Goddess of Liberty and
the liberty cap and the crowned head of liberty. Our Consti
tution bristles with it, and every State and every county and
every city and every town and every village and church and
every school and home teaches it as the foundation of human
safety and happiness and progress. It is the ideal of the
Western Hemisphere. On all the coins of the Argentine Repub
lic, of Chile, of Colombia, of Ecuador, o f Peru, of Uruguay, of
Venezuela, o f Bolivia, of Honduras and Guatemala, and Mexico
“ liberty,” in some form, is stamped upon the coins and carried
in the pockets of the common people and is cherished in their
hearts as the highest ideal of the great Western Hemisphere.
Brazil freed her slaves without bloodshed before 1860 be
cause of the love of her people for liberty.
The people of the Argentine Republic and of Chile erected
a statue of Christ, the Prince o f Peace, on their joint border
line as a lasting memorial of the peace and brotherhood of the
people of the two Republics. This statue, unveiled March 13,
1904, was cast out of bronze from old cannon belonging to the
two countries.
The great liberty bell that sounded the cry of liberty on July
4. 1776, recast in 1753 in Philadelphia, bears the prophetic
w ords:
PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND TO ALL THE INHABITANTS
THEREOF.
A hundred years later, in 1886, the people of France who love
liberty and who established liberty in France by the French
Revolution, presented to the people of the United States the
magnificent statue of “ Liberty enlightening the world.” which
our people erected on a giant granite pedestal, where it holds
out at the entrance of Now York Harbor a blazing torch over
300 feet high, where all the world shall see and do honor to
“ liberty.”
44915— 13387
Mr. President, llie ideals of all the western hemisphere have
been torn down by Huerta and the corrupt commercial forces
behind him which created him and of which he is a mere in
strumentality. He symbolizes corrupt commercialism, monop
oly, concessions unearned, using the property and powers of
the common people not for their betterment but to their ruin
and the death of liberty.
The conditions in Mexico are absolutely unendurable. Our
national principles and our national safety are endangered.
The welfare of all the North and South American countries
would be jeopardized unless liberty and freedom shall be re
stored to the people of Mexico under constitutional safeguards.
The long triumph of bribery and corruption and military
force over the judicial, the legislative, and the executive powers
of the unhappy people of Mexico has finally led directly to
open treason and the overthrow of even the forms of constitutinal government and has led to the establishment of an irre
sponsible military oligarchy and despotism. Men of great
intelligence have been led by avarice and greed and ambition
through corrupt processes to monopolize and commercialize the
political powers of the people of Mexico through a group of un
wise and short-sighted Mexican leaders who have been willing
to see the governing powers of the people of Mexico fraudu
lently controlled and the great values of the lands of Mexico
diverted to private hands through monopoly.
Military despotism is now in control of Mexico, with all con
stitutional guaranties overthrown.
i f military revolution is permitted by treason and murder to
usurp the governing powers of the people o f Mexico, if freedom
is thus destroyed by monopoly in Mexico, if liberty is thus slain
before our very eyes that avarice and greed mav rule the land
through a military despotism, overthrowing the civil law, then,
Mr. President, the whole o f America is in peril.
Powers similar to and to some extent the same that have cor
rupted Mexico and destroyed constitutional government are
busy in Colombia, in Venezuela, and in some of the other Re
publics of North and South America, and the establishment of a
m ilita ij, commercial despotism in Mexico, if successful would
constitute a precedent, the danger of which should ’ not be
ignored.
I congratulate the world that neither the United States, nor
Argentina, nor Brazil, nor Chile recognize the military despot
who,^ by treason, seized the governing power of the people of
Mexico and by fraud has retained it.
It is well known that the Government of Porfirio Diaz was a
military despotism under the color of a Republic, yet in the
main, was conducted apparently with a view to developing the
resources of Mexico and of protecting life, at least where sub
mission was rendered to his Government.
Finally, the conditions developed by Porfirio Diaz in estab
lishing innumerable monopolies throughout Mexico by conces
sion of various kinds led to a state of unrest and a dangerous
revolutionary sentiment that made it necessary for him to leave
Mexico and live in Europe. His conduct was practical flight
from imminent danger of revolutionary assassination.
He left his successor ad interim—De la Barra—and Madero
was elected as an avowed progressive candidate, professing, at
44915— 13387
16
least, tlie patriotic purpose of reform. He was elected through
the defective electoral machinery of Mexico, but his weak Gov
ernment was soon overthrown by the old commercial oligarchy
and its secret allies and sympathizers by mutiny and con
spiracy.
On February 9, 1913, at 7 o’clock in the morning, Felix Diaz,
who had procured a mutiny among the troops of Madero,
escaped, by collusion, from the penitentiary and immediately
organized an assault on Madero’s Government, with the coop
eration of several thousand o f Madero’s troops. Gen. Huerta
was in charge of Madero’s troops at the palace, and Gen.
Blanquet, at present the right-hand man o f Gen. Huerta, was
next in importance of Madero s generals. The loyalty of both
Huerta and Blanquet was already questioned.
De la Barra and Huerta were, on February 10, already in
consultation for the purpose o f effecting some arrangement, and
Diaz was quoted on February 10 as hoping for a good issue
from the negotiations being carried on with Gen. Huerta.
Blanquet’s troops deserted to Diaz. Huerta carried on warfare
with Diaz by day and was having secret conferences with his
representatives by night.
Finally, on February 17, Huerta stated that the plans were
fully matured to remove Madero. Blanquet’s guns were turned
toward Chapultepec. Blanquet’s troops were put in charge of
the National Palace, and the troops friendly to Madero were
put outside of the palace by Huerta, Madero’ s commanding
general.
On February 18, at 2 p. m., Huerta, the sworn commander of
Madero’s troops, had Blanquet arrest his chief, the elected
President of the Republic, Madero, and the Vice President,
Suarez, and the entire Cabinet. At the same time Gustavo
Madero, the brother of the President, was arrested and imme
diately afterwards killed.
On February 15, Pedro Lascurain, secretary of foreign rela
tions, appeared in the hall o f the committees of the Chamber
o f Deputies o f the Congress o f Mexico and falsely represented
that the American ambassador had expressed Lis positive
opinion that 3,000 United States marines would immediately
come to the City of Mexico to protect the lives and interests of
Americans as well as other foreigners residing there.
This was done in order to force Madero’s resignation, but
Madero refused to resign. The following action was taken in
the Mexican Senate:
(Appendix No. 1.)
S pecial S essio n H eld F ebruary 15, 1913, in t h e H all of C o m m it t ee s
of t h e C h am ber of D e p u t ie s .
S enator J uan C. F ernandez , P re
sid in g .
*
*
* Upon the reading of the inserted dispatch being finished,
Mr. Pedro Lascurain, secretary of foreign relations, appeared and was
granted the floor for the purpose of reporting. Mr. Lascurain stated
that the international situation of Mexico was extremely critical with
respect to the United States of America, for telegrams have been re
ceived from Washington conveying the decision of that Government,
already being carried out, to send war ships to Mexico territorial waters
of the Gulf and of the Pacific, and transports with landing troops.
The secretary of foreign relations added that, at 1 o’clock a. m. to
day, the United States ambassador had convened in the quarters of
the embassy some members of the diplomatic corps to whom he made
kuown the impending arrival of the ships, and his firm and positive
opinion that 3,000 marines would come to the city of Mexico in order
44915— 13387
17
to protect the lives and interests of Americans as well as of other
foreigners residing therein.
J oan C. F ernandez , Presiding Senator.
R icardo R. G u z m a n , Senator and Secretary.
Jo se C'a st e l l o t , Senator and Secretary.
M exico , February 15. 1913.
When Huerta arrested the President of Mexico, Madero, he
immediately gave out a notice to the Mexican people that he had
assumed the executive power, and that he was holding under
arrest “ Mr. Francisco I. Madero and his Cabinet,” as follow s:
n o tic e .
In view of the most difficult circumstances through which the nation
is passing, and particularly in recent days, the capital of the Republic,
which, through the work of the defective government of Mr. Madero,
may well be characterized as being in an almost anarchical situation,
I have assumed the executive power and, pending the immediate con
vening of the Chambers of the Union, in order to pass upon this present
political situation, I am holding under arrest in the National Palace Mr.
Francisco I. Madero and his Cabinet, in order that as soon as this
point is decided and in an effort to reconcile people’s minds during the
present historical moments we may all work in behalf of peace, which
is a matter of life or deatli to the entire nation.
Given in the palace of the Executive, on February 18, 1913.
V. H uerta ,
Military Commanding General
in charge of the Executive Power.
At 9.30, February 18, Huerta and Felix Diaz met at the Amer
ican Embassy, where the American ambassador cooperated in
having them reach an understanding to work together, upon the
basis that Huerta should be the provisional President of the
Republic, and that Diaz should name the Cabinet, and that
thereafter Diaz should have the support of Huerta in being
elected as the permanent President. Their agreement was re
duced to writing, as follow s:
In the city of Mexico, at 9.30 p. m„ of February 18, 1913, Gens.
Felix Diaz and Victoriano Huerta met together, the former being
assisted by Attorneys Fidencio Hernandez and Rodolfo Reyes and the
latter by Lieut. Col. Joaquin Maas and Engineer Enrique Zepeda; and
Gen. Huerta stated that, inasmuch as the situation of Mr. Madero’s
government was_ unsustainable, and in order to avoid further bloodshed
and out of feelings of national fraternity, he had made prisoners of
said gentleman, his cabinet, and other persons, and that he wished to
express his good wishes to Gen. Diaz to the effect that the elements
represented by him might fraternize and, all united, save the present
distressful situation.
Gen. Diaz stated that his movements had had
no other object than to serve the national welfare, and that accordingly
he was ready to make any sacrifice which might redound to the ben
efit of the country.
After discussions had taken place on the subject among all those
present, as mentioned above, the following was agreed upon
First. From this time on the executive power which held sway is
deemed not to exist and is not recognized, the elements represented by
Gens. Diaz and Iluerta pledging themselves to prevent by all means
any attempt to restore said power.
Second. Endeavor will be made as soon as possible to adjust the
existing situation under the best possible legal conditions, and Gens.
Diaz and Iluerta will make every effort to the end that the latter may
within 72 hours assume the provisional presidency of the Republic, with
the following cabinet:
Foreign relations : Lie. Francisco L. de la Barra.
Treasury : Toribio Esquival Obregon.
W ar : Gon. Manuel Mondragon.
F om en to: Eng. Alberto Garcia Granados.
J u stice: Lie. Rodolfo Reyes.
Public instruction : Lie. J. Vera Estanol.
Comm unications: Eng. David de la Fuente.
There shall be created a new ministry, to be charged specially with
solving the agrarian problem and matters connected therewith, being
called the ministry of agriculture, and the portfolio thereof being in
trusted to Lie. Manuel Garza Adalpe.
Any modifications which may
44915— 13387--------3
for any reason be decided upon in this cabinet slate shall take place in
the same manner in which the slate itself was made up.
Third. W hile the legal situation is being determined and settled
Gens. Huerta and Diaz are placed in charge of all elements and author
ities of every kind, the exercise whereof may be necessary in order to
afford guaranties.
Fourth. Gen. Felix Diaz declines the offer to form part of the pro
visional cabinet in case Gen. Huerta assumes the Provisional Presi
dency, in order that he may remain at liberty to undertake his work
along the lines of his compromises with his party at the coming elec
tion, which purpose he wishes to express clearly and which is fully
understood by the signers.
Fifth. Official notice shall immediately be given to the foreign rep
resentatives, it being confined to stating to them that the executive
power has ceased ; that provision is being made for a legal substitute
therefor ; that meantime the full authority thereof is vested in Gen3 .
Diaz and H u e rta ; and that all proper guaranties will be afforded to
their respective countrymen.
Sixth. All revolutionists shall at once be invited to cease their
hostile movements, endeavor being made to reach the necessary set
tlements.
Gen. V ictoriano H uerta .
Gen. F e l ix D ia z .
As soon as this agreement was reached, Huerto and Diaz
issued the following joint proclamation:
[From Mexican Herald.]
JOINT PRO C L A M A T IO N .
To the Mexican people.
The unendurable and distressing situation through which the capi
tal of the Republic has passed obliged the army, represented by the
undersigned, to unite in a sentiment of fraternity to achieve the
t>alvation of the country. In consequence the nation may be at r e s t;
all liberties compatible with order are assured under the responsi
bility of the undersigned chiefs, who at once assumed command and
administration in so far as is necessary to afford full guarantees to
nationals and foreigners, promising that within 72 hours the legal
situation will have been duly organized.
The army invites the
people, on whom it relies, to continue in the noble attitude of respect
and moderation which it has hitherto observed; it also Invites all
revolutionary factions to unite for the consolidation of national peace.
Mexico, February 18, 1913.
V. H uerta .
F e l i x D iaz .
The legislature of the sovereign State of Coahuila, on Feb
ruary 19, the very next day, denounced Huerta's usurpation
and directed Gov. Carranza to use the armed forces of the
State in supporting Madero as the constitutional president.
On March 24 the Legislature of Sonora denounced the
usurpation o f Huerta, and thereafter in succession 10 of the
elected governors of the States of Mexico joined the revolution.
It is interesting to observe what became of the various gover
nors o f the various States of Mexico under Huerta’s usurpation.
The following 10 governors were replaced by military governors
and all joined the revolution:
Gov. Felipe Riveros, of Sinaloa; Gov. Venus Tiano Carranza,
o f Coahuila; Gov. Jose M. Maytorena, of Sonora; Gov. Alberto
Fuentes, of the State of Aguascalientes; Gov. Miguel Silva, of
Michoacan; Gov. Ramon Rosales, o f the State of Hidalgo; Gov.
Inocecio Lugo, of the State of Guerrero; Gov. J. Castillo Brito,
o f the State of Campeche; Gov. A. Camara Vales, of the State
o f Yucatan; Gov. Matias Guera, of the State o f Tamaulipas;
Abraham Gonzalez, governor of Chihuahua, was murdered by
Rabago, a major general under Huerta, by tying the governor on
the railroad track and slowly backing a yard engine over him
to give him a proper realization o f the horror o f death; Gov.
De la Barra went abroad to Paris, France; and Gov. Rafael
44915— 13387
19
Zapeda, of the State of San Luis Potosi, and Gov. Trinidad
Alamillo, of the State of Colima, and Gov. Patricio Leyva, of the
State of Morelos, were thrown in prison. Gov. Bibiano Vidareal, of Neuva Leon, fled the country and went to New York.
Gov. Carlos Potani, of the State of Durango, fled the country
and went to San Antonio, Tex. Six of the other governors wenc
to Mexico City, and the governor of Puebla and Tlilaxcala and
Queretaro were the only ones who remained at home out o f
28 governors elected by the people.
On February 19, 1913, under the duress of the fear of death
and on the promise of the safeguard of their lives, the Presi
dent and Vice President of Mexico signed the following resig
nation :
In view of the events which have occurred since yesterday in the
nation and for its greater tranquility, we formally resign our positions
of President and Vice President, respectively, to which we were elected.
W e protest whatever may be necessary.
F rancisco I. M adero .
J ose M. P ino S uarez .
M e x ic o C it y , February 19, 1913.
I am informed that this resignation was obtained from Presi
dent Madero and Vice President Suarez under the fear of
instant death, but was signed by them upon the agreed condition
that it should be held by the minister from Chile, a friend of
Madero, in escro, until President Madero and Vice President
Suarez could find safe asylum on a foreign warship. The agree
ment was broken, the resignation used as a basis o f having
Lascurain, minister of foreign relations under Madero, pro
claimed provisional President. He took the oath of office and
did not appoint a secretary of foreign relations, but he did
appoint A^ictoriano Huerta secretary of gobernacion. Huerta
took the oath as secretary of gobernacion, and Lascurain imme
diately resigned as provisional President, thus devolving the
presidency upon Huerta as next in line, and he took the oath of
office before Congress as President of the Republic. These
simultaneous acts, of course—the resignations of the President
and V ice President, procured by military force and duress, the
resignation of Lascurain under the same force—can not be re
garded as a legitimate conduct of public affairs, the entire pro
cedure being void, as treason against the people of Mexico,
punishable with death under the constitution and laws of
Mexico.
On Saturday, February 22—Washington’s birthday—Huerta,
as President, had the deposed President Madero and Vice Presi
dent Suarez transferred from the National Palace, not to a war
ship, where they might escape with their lives, but to the peni
tentiary in Mexico City. At 10 o’clock Huerta is alleged to
have changed the commandante of the penitentiary, and at 11
o’clock Madero and Suarez were killed.
On February 24, 1913, the new minister of foreign relations,
de la Barra, made a report to the members of the diplomatic
corps, giving an account of the death of President Madero and
Vice President Suarez, and promising the fullest judicial inves
tigation, and that minutes of all proceedings should be furnished
the diplomatic representatives of the foreign powers, it being
commonly believed that Huerta had had these men assassinated,
as was afterwards openly charged against Huerta on September
23, 1913, in the Mexican Senate by Senator Dominguez, of
Chiapas.
4491 5— 1:5387
The minutes of the judicial investigation have never been
furnished, and the United States has no adequate official in
formation except the statement of Huerta made to De la Barra
and Senor Garcia 11.30 Saturday night that as Madero and
Suarez were being conveyed in an automobile to the peniten
tiary they were killed in an exchange of shots between the
escort in whose custody they were held and a group of indi
viduals unknown who had attempted to rescue them.
Huerta had assured Madero and Suarez their safety before
using their resignations. He was responsible for their safe
guard. Huerta also fully advised, because Madero’s mother
and Suarez’s wife had gone to Ambassador Wilson and prayed
him to intercede with Huerta to spare the life of Madero and
Suarez and to allow them to go to Europe, stating “ that this
was the expressed condition attached to their resignation,” and
Ambassador Wilson made the appeal to Huerta.
I am informed that De la Barra advised Huerta that unless
he were satisfied the murder of Madero was not at the conniv
ance of the Government he would immediately resign with two
of his colleagues.
It is interesting to see what became of this cabinet, ar
ranged in the pact between Huerta and Diaz and whose mem
bers had been named by Diaz.
Of this cabinet named by Felix Diaz under the pact, the Sec
retary of Foreign Affairs, De la Barra, is in France, the Sec
retary of Finance, Obregon, is a general in the Constitutional
Army making war on Huerta, and recently refused to consider
cooperating with the Federal troops against the United States;
Rudolph Reyes, of the Department of Justice, has been killed;
the Secretary of Public Instruction, Estannol, has fled to the
United States; the Secretary of Communications. De la Fuente,
has gone abroad; the Minister of Agriculture. Alvarpe, has re
signed; and the Secretary of Fomento, Alberto Gill; the Sec
retary of Interior, Alberto Gienodes; are out of the cabinet and
gone.
Felix Diaz, who made the pact with Huerta, fled from Mexico
for fear of assassination by Huerta’s orders.
The American ambassador. Wilson, made a strenuous effort
to have Huerta recognized. As dean of the diplomatic corps, he
made a speech o f congratulation to Huerta upon his accession
to the presidency. He urged our State Department to recognize
Huerta. He instructed all American consuls to do everything
possible to bring about a general acceptance of Huerta, and
advised them that Huerta would be immediately recognized by
all foreign Governments. On February 24 Ambassador Wilson
advised the Government that the Madero incident had pro
duced no effect upon the public mind and that Consul Holland
had telegraphed that Huerta’s government refused to accept
the adhesion of Gov. Carranza, of Coahuila; was sending
troops against him. and that Carranza had evacuated his capital.
When the secretary of the British legation expressed the
opinion that his Government would not recognize Huerta on
account of the murder of Madero, Ambassador Wilson ex
pressed the opinion that it would be a great error, endangering
Huerta’s government, upon the safety of which all foreigners
depended. Our ambassador expressed the opinion that Huerta’s
government was not privy to the murder of Madero and Suarez,
and that either the occurrence was as stated, or that the death
44915—13387
21
o f Madero and Suarez was due to a subordinate military con
spiracy, and be was of tbe opinion also that the murder of
Madero and Suarez, as two Mexicans relegated to private life
by their resignations, should arouse no greater expressions of
popular disapproval in the United States than the murder,
unrequited by justice, of some 75 or 80 Americans in Mexico
during the preceding two years.
Our ambassador ceased to be an acceptable medium of com
munication between President Wilson and the authorities of
Mexico, and for this reason his resignation was accepted.
Huerta’s usurpation of the governing powers o f the people
of Mexico, his military revolution, overthrowing the Presi
dent and Vice President of Mexico and bringing about the im
mediate death of these officers elected by the Mexican people,
was not approved by a large part of the people o f Mexico, who,
however, were, for the most part, intimidated by the military
power of Huerta and by the bloodthirsty disposition shown by
him and by his military clique. Huerta is the product of his
environment. He had, since his boyhood, been the witness of
the killing by military order of citizens who proved obnoxious
to the government of Porfirio Diaz. I have no doubt that
Huerta regards such conduct as entirely justifiable. There are
those in the United States in sympathy with Huerta and his
military commercial despotism controlling Mexico, who say
that no other kind of government is possible in Mexico except
a military despotism.
Against this cruel, unwise, unjust conception, I enter my
solemn protest, and I declare it to be my profound belief that
the people of Mexico are. in the main, an industrious, worthy,
honest, good-hearted people, who would like to be at peace with
the world, and who would rejoice in a stable government under
constitutional guaranties, and that they have abundant intelli
gence to carry it out if they can be freed from the despotism now
in control of their government.
nii,n’ wll° has observed the sacrifices which are being
made by the people of Mexico in trying to restore constitutional
government, should deny tlieir attachment to liberty and the
constitutional law.
Ao man, who looks at the record of the elected governors of
the states of Mexico, who might have bought their peace by
subserviency of Huert^. who witnessed the brave and upright
conduct of the Mexican congressmen imprisoned by Huerta, the
brave conduct of Senator Dominguez in speaking the truth at
the cost of life and the enormous sacrifices now being made by
the Mexicans on the field of battle, should doubt the attitude of
tlie iieople of Mexico. The people of Mexico have in them the
Divine spark, they have been taught the Christian virtues and
they have the same natural affections and passions as other
people of like blood. They have had no fair chance.
Mr. President, the governors of Mexico were not the only
ones to express their hostility to the active usurpation by
Huerta. \ arious members of Congress in Mexico expressed
their disapproval of Huerta’s conduct, and representing, as they
did, the people of Mexico, and even more particularly those
who were the beneficiaries of the monopolistic system of Mexico,
nevertheless showed were not willing to have the constitutional
guaranties overthrown. The cruelty and unlawful violence of
ne government of Huerta was shown by the methods pursued
44915—13387
against them. A few instances of which I think should be
enumerated.
For instance, a member of Congress, Serapia Arendon, hav
ing expressed his lack of sympathy with the Huerta regime,
was warned in several ways that his life was in great jeop
ardy, and on the night of the 22d of August, 1913, he was sud
denly seized, rushed in an automobile to the Thanepantla Bar
racks, where some shots were heard, and he has never been
seen since.
The condition being intolerable, a member of the Senate of
Mexico, Senator Belisariyo Domingues, representing the State
o f Chiapas, finally made up his mind to do his duty by de
nouncing this usurpation and treason, knowing that it would
cost him his life. It is reported that he made his will, bade his
family farewell, and on the 23d o f September delivered in
writing a speech in the Senate of Mexico. The president of
the Senate refused to allow his speech to be delivered, but could*
not prevent its being made a part of the record.
I shall read that speech :
Sept. 23, 1913. Address of Belisario Dominquez, Senator from the Sov
ereign State of Chiapas to the Senate of the Republic of Mexico.
Mr. President of the Sen ate: The matter being of argent interest
for the welfare of the country, I am compelled to set aside the usual
formulas and to ask you please to begin this session by taking cog
nizance of this sheet and making it known at once to the honorable
members of the Senate.
Gentlem en: You all have read with deep interest the message preented by Don Victoriano Huerta to the Congress of the Union on the
16th instant.
There is no doubt, gentlemen, that you as well as myself felt indig
nant in the face of the accumulation of falsities contained in that
document.
Whom does that message aim to deceive, gentlemen? The
Congress of the Union? No, gentlem en; all its members are cultured
persons who take an interest in politics, who are in touch with
events in this country, and who can not be deceived on the subject.
Is it the Mexican Nation that is to be deceived?
Is it this noble
country which, trusting in your honesty, has placed in your hands
her most sacred interests?
W hat must the National Assembly do in
this case?
It must respond promptly to the trust and confidence of
the nation which has honored this body with her representation, and
it must let her know the truth and so prevent her falling into the
abyss which is opening at her feet.
The truth is t h i s : During the reign of Don Victoriano Huerta not
only has nothing been done in favor of the pacification of the country,
but the present condition of the Mexican Republic is infinitely worse
than ever before. The revolution is spreading everywhere. Many na
tions, formerly good friends of Mexico, now refuse to recognize this Gov
ernment, since it is an illegal one. Our coin is depreciated, our credit
in the throes of agony.
The whole press of the Republic, either
muzzled or shamelessly sold to the Government, systematically conceals
the truth. Our fields are abandoned. Many towns have been destroyed,
and, lastly, famine and misery in all its forms threaten to spread
throughout our unhappy country. W hat is the cause of such a wretched
situation ?
First, and above anything else, this condition is due to the fact that
the Mexican people can not submit and yield to and accept as President
of the Republic the soldier who snatched the power by means of a
treason and whose first act on rising to the Presidency was to assassi
nate in the most cowardly manner the President and Vice President
legally consecrated by the popular vote, and the first of these two men,
he who promoted and gave position to Don Victoriano Huerta and
covered him with honors, was the man to whom Victoriano Huerta pub
licly swore loyalty and faithfulness.
In the second place, this situation is the result of the means adopted
by Don Victoriano Huerta and which he has been employing in order
to obtain the pacification of the country. You know what these means
a r e ; nothing but extermination, death for all the men. all the families,
all the towns which do not sympathize with his Government.
Peace will be made at any cost whatever, said Don Victoriano Huerta.
Have you studied, gentlemen, the terrible meaning of these words of
44915— 13387
23
the egotistical, ferocious man, Don Victoriano Huerta?
They mean
that he is ready to shed all the Mexican blood, to cover with corpses
the whole surface of the national territory, to convert our country into
one immense ruin, so that he may not leave the presidential chair, nor
shed a single drop of his own blood.
In his insane anxiety to keep the post of President—
I ask the Senate to listen to this—
In his insane _ anxiety to keep the post of President, Victoriano
Huerta is committing a new infamy.
He is provoking an inter
national conflict with the United States of America.
Where was that said? On the floor of the Mexican senate,
by a Mexican senator who had made his will, had made his
peace with God, had bid farewell to his family, knowing that
would go to his immediate death.
ih e Senate of the United States wants to observe these
words and hear where they come from—from the senator from
Chiapas, Belisario Dominguez, who was immediately killed,
who knew that he would be killed, and who was willing to die
to have the right to speak the truth in the cause of humanity
and of justice, and o f Mexico.
J
In
his
insane
anxiety
to
keep
the
post
of
President
Victoriano'
of the greater n u t
no*; hesitated to violate the sovereignty
grearei pait of the States, deposing the legallv elected onnstitiiernors. and supplanting them with military governors who will
farces* 0d ^
t0 Cheat the people by meana of r i d i c X u s a n d criminal
? ? ch<lat the People by elections that were crimiread " S o the r' S okd IUert“ ' “ ° riler whlch 1 sba11 Presently
f” re
Lot
will rise up and become greater s t l l i the na.tl0n is saved- and she
The national assemblv h l f the dutv '
beauti fal than ever.
Huerta from the Presidency He is t h e o n ^ ^ l i T A Don v|ctoriano
t
E r - - * ^ r & n & S £ £ £S3 3
v ,\ ou. wil1 tel! me, gentlemen, that the attempt is dangerous -
Don
for
K a s w 's ? a S S
only, though t
A
t h e 'r i s T t S
,f 4 f
.s this man without patriotism? Is this man without love
of country? is this man without love of justice and righteous
ness in government, when he makes his appeal to the Mexi2
Senat.e? Shall we despise a people capable of such a sacrideliber-^tely f rGat Semitor wil°
in tlie Performance of duty
He said:
C0 mmHnte d °n rmai « t i t l y o^ See 4.Pr a/ ; l r,e,R nlng afraln in the R epublic, you
prom ised to n i c i f ^ e thD d iPUt £?,lth l n t he fa lse w ords o f the m an w ho
this mnn
*be R epublic, to -d a y , w hen you see clearly th a t
tow ard ruin ™ -}P postei'’ a „w icked inept w ho is fa s t pu shing the nation
to Wield nowcT?
R °ofw rr ea? f death, perm it such a m an to con tin ue
, ? ect> gentlem en, m editate, and rep ly to th is ouerv
on n h .m ° iU d be sa d o f those on a vessel w ho, du rin g a violen t storm
AoTn
0US Sea’ WOuld appoiDt as pilot a butcher who had no
4 4 y l5 — 13387
nautical knowledge, who was on his first sea trip, and who had no
other recommendation to the post than the fact of his having betrayed
and assassinated the captain of the vessel?
Your duty is unalterable, ineludible, gentlemen, and the nation ex
pects of you its fulfillment.
This first duty discharged, it will be easy for the National Assembly
to fulfill others derived from it, asking all revolutionary chiefs to stop
all active hostilities and to appoint their delegates in order that by
general accord the President be elected who is to call for presi
dential elections, and who is to use care that these be carried out in
all legality.
The world is looking on us, gentlemen, members of the National
Assembly, and the nation hopes that you will honor her before the
world, saving her from the shame of having as first magistrate a
traitor and an assassin.
(Signed)
D r . B. D o m in g u e z ,
Senator for Chiapas.
Immediately afterwards, Senator Belisaryo Dominguez sud
denly and mysteriously disappeared and was reported to have
been killed.
On October 9th. the Chamber o f Deputies of the Congress of
Mexico passed the following resolution:
(1 ) That a commission formed of three deputies be appointed for
the purpose of making all necessary investigations to find out where
Senator Belisaryo Dominguez is and that it be empowered with all
the facilities which it deems necessary for the matter in hand.
(2)
That the senate be invited to appoint a commission for the same
object.
(3) The commission of the Camara will propose what may
be necessary in view of the result of the investigation.
(4) That this
motion be communicated to the executive so that he may impart
whatever aid may be necessary to tne commission or commissions, as
the case may be, making known to him that the national representation
places the lives of the deputies and senators under the protection of
said executive who has at his disposition the necessary elements tc
enforce the immunity which the constitution authorizes to those
functionaries.
(5 ) That said executive be informed that in case the
disappearance of another deputy or senator occurs and the national
representation will be obliged to celebrate its session where it may
find guarantees.
Immediately afterwards, on October 10, in the afternoon.
Huerta’s minister of gobernacion appeared in the chamber and
demanded a reconsideration of these resolutions. The presi
dent of the Chamber of Deputies arose and adjourned the
chamber, whereupon 110 deputies present were arrested by
Huerta’s soldiers and sent to the penitentiary. Huerta had all
the exits barred and appeared in person before the Congress to
enforce his demand, and his demand, in spite of his bloody
character and cruel power, was not acceded to by the Mexican
Congress. Huerta immediately published a decree declaring the
Congress dissolved and without further power and immediately
declared the judicial and legislative power vested in himself
and that the constitutional guaranties against arrest of mem
bers of Congress were suspended.
These decrees were signed by him as of October 11, but were
put into effect October 10. as follow s:
Victoriano Huerta, constitutional President ad interim of the Mexi
can United States, to its inhabitants makes known that the Chamber
of Deputies and Senators of the Twenty-sixth Legislature having been
dissolved and inhabilitated from exercising their functions and until
the people elect new magistrates who shall take over the legislative
powers, and in the beiief that the Government should count on all the
necessary faculties to face the situation and to reestablish the con
stitutional order of things in the shortest possible time as is its pur
pose since October 26 has been set as a date for elections for deputies
and senators, has seen fit to decree that articles of decree.
A rticle O n e . The judicial power of the federation shall continue in
its functions within the limits set by the constitution of the Republic
44915— 13387
25
and the decree of the executive of October 10 of this month and such
others as shall be issued by him.
.
,.
A rticle T w o . The executive power of the union conserves the pow
ers conferred upon him by the constitution and assumes furthermore
the departments of gobernacion, hacienda, and war only for the time
absolutely necessary for the reestablishment of the legislative power,
in the meantime the executive takes upon himself the powers granted
the legislative power by the constitution in the aforementioned de
partments and will make use of them by issuing decrees which shall he
observed generally and which he may deem expedient f o r , the public
welfare.
A rticle T h r e e . The executive of the union will render an account
to the legislative power of the use which he makes of the powers
which he assumes by means of this decree as soon as this is in func
tion. Wherefore, I order that this be printed, published, and given due
fulfillment. Given at the National Palace of Mexico, October 11, 1913.
(Signed)
V. H uerta .
Victoriano Huerta, constitutional president ad interim of the Mexi
can United States, to its inhabitants makes known that in view of the
fact that the Chamber of Deputies and Senators of the Congress of
the union have been dissolved and inhabilitated to perform their func
tions, and in view of the powers which I hold in the Department of
Gobernacion according to the decree of October 11 of this year, I
have seen fit to decree that- article 1, the constitutional exemption from
arrest and judicial action which the citizens which formed the T w en ty-,
sixth Congress of the union enjoyed in view of their functions, is
hereby repealed aud consequently they are subject to the jurisdiction
of the tribunals corresponding to the case in the event that they are
guilty of any crime or offense. Wherefore I order that this be printed,
published, and duly fulfilled. Given at the National Palace in Mexico
October 11, 1913.
(Signed)
V. H uerta .
On October 11 the entire diplomatic corps was received by the
minister of foreign affairs, who advised them that while the act
of Huerta’s Government was unconstitutional, still that the
Government had become impossible with the Chamber as at pres
ent constituted. The Spanish minister, at an hour after mid
night, October 10, called on Nelson O’ Shaughnessy, the Ameri
can charge d’affaires, and they went together and demanded
guaranties of the minister of foreign affairs for the lives of the
arrested Congressmen. What a spectacle before the civilized
world is this midnight visit to prevent wholesale assassination!
The promise was given, but only a list of 84 was presented as
those in prison. What became of the 24 others arrested I do
not know, but I should like to know.
On October 13 Huerta charged the members of Congress with
sedition and treason, and stated that they should be tried.
Huerta’s secretary informed O’ Shaughnessy that most of the
deputies arrested had been set at liberty, but in point of fact
they acknowledged having 84 of the 110 arrested in the peniten
tiary at midnight, October 10, and on November 13, 1913, the
members of Congress whose names I have already given were
recorded still in the penitentiary, and many of them were still
in the penitentiary when we took Vera Cruz.
The President of the United States had refused to recognize
Huerta for the reasons well known, and had been urging a new
election so that the people of Mexico, even under the defective
election law, might choose a successor to Huerta.
On October 10, 1913, when Huerta had put the Mexican Con
gress in the penitentiary, he issued a decree for the election, on
October 26, of a new Congress and of a President.
On October 14, 1913, he issued the following decree, modifying
the election laws to make the corrupt control of the election
absolutely certain, putting tbe power in the hands of his in-
4 4 9 1 5 — 13387
struments. I ask permission to put the decree into the Record
without reading.
Mr. SHAFROTH. I wish the Senator from Oklahoma would
read the order whicli he says Huerta issued setting aside the
election laws.
Mr. OWEN. The first order issued was this:
Victorlano Huerta, constitutional President ad Interim of the Mexi
can United States, to its Inhabitants makes known that the Chamber
of Deputies and Senators of the 26th legislature having been dissolved
and inhabilitated from exercising their functions, and until the people
elect new magistrates who shall take over the legislative powers, and
in the belief that the Government should count on all the necessary
faculties to face the situation and to reestablish the constitutional
order of things in the shortest possible time, as is its purpose, since
October 26 has been set as a date for elections for deputies and sena
tors, has seen fit to decree that articles of decree.
A r t icle one . The judicial power of the federation shall continue in
its functions within the limits set by the constitution of the Republic
and the decree of the Executive of October 10 of this month and such
others as shall be issued by him.
A r t ic le t w o . The executive power of the Union conserves the pow
ers conferred upon him by the constitution and assumes, furthermore,
the departments of gobernacion, hacienda, and war only for the time
absolutely necessary for the reestablishment of the legislative power.
In the meantime the Executive takes upon himself the powers granted
the legislative power by the constitution in the aforementioned de
partments and will make use of them by issuing decrees, which shall
be observed generally and which he may deem expedient for the public
welfare.
A r t icle t h r e e . The Executive of the Union will render an account
to the legislative power of the use which he makes of the powers which
he assumes by means of this decree as soon as this is in function.
Wherefore I order that this be printed, published, and given due ful
fillment.
At the same time he issued a decree declaring that the right
of safety and immunity from arrest of members of congress
was set aside and abrogated and, as I have stated, put the
whole congress in the penitentiary. He ja y s:
I have seen fit to decree that article 1, the constitutional exemption
from arrest and judicial action which the citizens which formed the
twenty-sixth congress of the union enjoyed in view of their functions, is
hereby repealed.
Mr. SHAFROTH. And yet some people want such a man
recognized as the president of Mexico?
Mr. OWEN. Oh, yes; some people want him recognized. I
do not know why. I suppose they do not know about him,
but I thought it well enough to let the people of this country
know something about Huerta. For that reason I have thought
proper to present these various documents, showing his con
duct as the alleged head of the Mexican Government. Here
is the decree which he issued as to the election laws, putting the
power in the hands of his military governors and jefe politicos
that they might be able to make false returns of the elections:
Victoriano Huerta, Constitutional President ad interim of the United
Mexican States, to the inhabitants th ereo f: Know ye. that to the end
that the extraordinary elections of senators and deputies to the Con
gress of the Union, convoked by decree under date of the 10th instant,
be carried out with all regularity, 1 have seen fit to decree the fol
lowing :
“ A rticle 1. In accordance with article 5 of the decree of the 10th
instant, the extraordinary elections of deputies and senators will be
subject to the conditions of the electoral law of December 19, 1911,
with the additions and modifications which follow.
“ A r t . 2. The elections shall be by direct v o te ; they shall be held
at the same time as those for president and vice president of the Re
public ; the same electoral divisions shall serve for them as were
formed under the law to that effect of the 31st of May last, and the
same designation of polling officials and scrutinizers which was made
44915— 13387
27
under the provisions of the same law shall subsist. Candidates must
register.
“ A rt . 3. The registration of the candidates provided for in article
6,8 of the electoral law of December 19. 1911. shall be carried out before
the 20th of this month, and the handing over of credentials which is
ordered in the same article, as well as the designation of representa
tives of parties or candidates, shall be complied with at the same time
these latter are inscribed.
A rticle 4. The voting shall be subject to the terms of the electoral
law of December 19, 1911, and in accord with the following rules:
New polling regulations.
“ 1. The polling official shall hand to each
voter, in addition to the lists which correspond to the election of Presi
dent and Vice President of the Republic, the various lists for the cast
ing of votes for deputies and senators and shall proceed to collect the
votes in urns or boxes which shall be separate and distinctly marked,
one for the election of President and Vice President, another for the
election of deputies, and a third for the election of senators.
Second. When the polls are closed definitely, the total count of the
votes cast for President and Vice President shall be made in accordance
with the law of the 31st of last May, and afterwards the count shall be
made of the votes for deputies and senators, respectively, the result of
the latter being made known in separate documents, which shall be re
mitted, together with the designation of the electoral district and the
voting slips to the highest authority residing in the place designated as
capital (cabecera) of the electoral district (that is, to his military gov-'
ernors), and if there be no cabecera they shall be turned over to the
highest municipal authority. Juntas to count ballots.
Third. The count of the votes cast in each electoral district shall be
made by a junta formed by the highest political authority to which the
foregoing fraction refers, or in default of him by the first municipal
authority and by two councilmen (concajales) nanmd by the ayuntamiento of the cabecera of the electoral district. The default of any of
the members of this junta shall be made good by the regideres of the
ayuntamiento, according to the order of their enumeration, and in de
fault of these, by those who will have held such position the preceding
year, according to their enumeration. The designation of the two coun
cilmen who are to form part of the junta shall be made by the ayuntamientos in public session and by secret ballot on Thursday the 23d of
the present month. Jefe Politico to preside.
Fourth. The junta shall assemble in iunta shall be made by the
ayuntamiente on Sunday, the 26th of the present month, at 6 o’clock in
the evening, being presided over by the jefe politico, and in his
absence by the highest municipal authority.
It shall designate secre
tary from among its members and shall commission another of its
members to examine the returns as they be received, and the junta shall
reassemble on the 2d day of November next to make the count, after
the rendering of the report which the commission shall present.
Fifth. The junta shall abstain from making any remarks respecting
the defects which affect the votes cast or those which may be alleged
by the parties or candidates registered, and shall limit itself to mak
ing them known in its minutes, so that they may be passed upon defi
nitely by the Chamber of Deputies or by the corresponding legislature,
according to whether it is a matter of election of deputies or senators!
Credentials in quadruplicate.
Sixth. After the count has been made of votes cast, the deputies
proprietory and substitute shall be declared elected and the number of
votes cast for each one of the candidates for senator proprietory and
substitute shall be declared and the corresponding reports shall be made.
The report in regard to deputies shall be made in four copies; one
shall be sent to the Chamber of Deputies, together with all the elec
tion documents and vote certificates; another copy shall be sent to
the Ministry of (lobernacion ; and the other two shall be remitted to the
citizens elected deputy proprietory and substitute, respectively, so that
they may serve as credentials. The report of the election of senators
shall be made in three copies, one of which shall be sent to the Senate,
one to the M inistry of Gobernacion. and the third to the Legislature
of the State, that that body may make its declaration relative to the
election of senators proprietory and substitute. To report before Novem
ber 10.
Seventh. The junta shall make its report as soon as it shall have re
ceived those of all the municipalities of the electoral district or a
report to the effect that the elections were not held, but in any case
it must present its report by the 10th of next November. The result
of the count made by the junta shall be published immediately after
its session shall have adjourned on the doors of the municipal palace
and as soon as possible thereafter in the official organ of the correspond
ing federative entity.
44915— 13387
l>8
A r t . 5. The juntas for examining the votes shall make their counts
strictly in accordance with the reports from the various booths and
abstain from making any comment on the votes emitted, under pain of
a $200 fine for each member of the junta who violates this rule. The
respective chamber or legislature, as the case may be, will hand over to
the respective judges of the district any violators of this law, so that
the fine aforesaid may be duly enforced. Therefore, I order that be
printed, published, and duly carried out.
Given in the National Palace of Mexico, October 12, 1913.
(Signed)
V. P. H u e r t a .
On October 22 there were sent out private instructions to the
governors o f various States instructing them in effect to make
false returns in Huerta’s interest, and to make sure that the
election of President would be void by returning an insufficient
number of precincts, as follows:
PRIVATE INSTRUCTIONS
FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GEN.
JOAQUIN MAAS, MILITARY GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF PUEBLA, TO THE
END THAT HE MAY TRANSMIT THE SAME TO THE JEFES POLITICOS OF
THE STATE.
First. If any municipal president has entered into agreements with
any of the m ilitant political parties his removal from office shall be
discreetly sought, and in the case it should not be possible, cautious
efforts «h a ll be made to secure complete solidarity between said
presidents and the jefes politicos.
Second. It is especially recommended that the persons in charge
of the polls should be completely and absolutely reliable, so that
they may follow the instructions given to them.
Third. If there should be sufficient time for it, strict orders should
be given that polls for rural estates should not be established in
the seat of the municipality or town, but in the estates themselves
of the electoral division, this for the purpose of avoiding the attend
ance of those who are to take charge of the polls, the principal object
being to prevent the elections in two-thirds, plus one, of the polls
constituting the district. Therefore the greatest number of polls
shall be ------------ . To meet the provisions of the law and conceal the
above-mentioned commission, a complete list should be published, giv
ing the names of the persons who are to have charge of the polls in
accordance with article 13 of the electoral law of May 31, 1913, it
being understood that only the appointments corresponding to the
third part or less shall be sent to the sections, among which are to
be included the polls in the urban wards.
Fourth. In all the polls which may operate blank tickets shall be
made use of in order that the absolute majority of the votes may be
cast in favor of Gen. Iluerta for President and Gen. Blanquet for Vice
President.
Fifth. In spite o f the fact that article 31 provides that the returns
should be at once and directly sent to the chamber of deputies, the
chairman of the polls shall be instructed that the returns be sent to
the political prefecture, which returns shall be quickly examined by the
jefe politico, and if the same are found to be in accordance with the
instructions given therein, he shall return them to the chairman, in
forming them that they must send them directly to the chamber of
deputies.
If upon making the examination it should appear that the
third part of the polls have not acted right, they shall fail to send
the number of returns that may be necessary to the end that the
chamber of deputies may receive only one-third or less of the total.
Sixth. Political parties and citizens shall be given full freedom in
the polls which may operate, allowing them to make all kinds of pro
tests, provided they refer to votes in favor of any of the candidates
appearing before the people; but care shall be taken that such protests
do not refer to the votes mentioned in paragraph 4 of these instructions.
Seventh. If upon examining the returns the jefes politicos should
find that the votes do not agree with the instructions, before sending
them they should fix them up to the end that the note of transmis
sion, the minutes of the election, etc., should agree with the in
structions.
Eighth. Persons shall be chosen who may inspire absolute confidence
and may be well versed in the electoral law to make a quiet and re
served inspection o f the polls which may be in operation and to pre
sent before them all sorts of protests, in accordance with article 30
of the electoral law, it being understood that all protests should refer
to the candidates who may be in the field, but never in regard to votes
mentioned in paragraph 4.
41915— 13387
29
Ninth. After elections they shall make a quick concentration of the
polls which were in operation and shall communicate this information
to the Government if possible on the same day and in cipher and by
special courier.
. . . .
^
Tenth. Under their most strict responsibility the governor of a state
who may receive these instructions shall comply with them under tne
penalty of discharge of office and other punishment which the keaerai
Government may see fit to apply.
M e x ic o , October 22, 1913.
By October 15 it bad become obvious, and the representatives
of nearly all of the powers except Great Britain had reached
the point where they considered armed intervention by the
United States as practically inevitable. It was already obvious
that Huerta would not permit Diaz to stand as a candidate for
the Presidency, notwithstanding his agreement with him o f Feb
ruary 18, 1913.
Diaz had named the cabinet, it is true, but the cabinet was
set aside one by one, and Diaz was instructed to go to Japan
and then to Europe and finally dared not to return to Mexico,
but receiving a command from Huerta to return to Mexico to
resume his post in the army, Diaz came to Vera Cruz, was put
under instant surveillance by Huerta’s forces, but, by a skill
ful maneuver, fled by night to a warship and saved his life; he
profoundly believed that he was on the point of being assas
sinated and did flee by night just before the election, and is
now in the United States.
On October 23 Huerta advised the diplomatic corps of
Mexico City that he had dissolved the Congress of Mexico,
because it was disloyal and revolutionary, 50 deputies having
joined the revolutionists. He stated that he was not a candi
date for the presidential office; that votes for him would be
null and void, even if a majority of votes were cast for him ;
that he would not accept the Presidency, not only because the
constitution prohibited him, but because he had given public
promise to the contrary, and he requested the diplomats to give
these solemn assurances to their respective countries.
Immediately before the election of October 26 the country
was flooded with circulars urging the people to vote for Huerta
for President. The circulars were as big as the door of the
Senate Chamber, urging people to vote for this man who said
he was not running for the Presidency. Immediately after the
election, on October 27, Huerta’s minister of gobernacion pub
licly announced that the election returns from Puebla, San Luis
Potosi, showed a “ landslide ” for Huerta and Blanquette.
Mr. THOMAS. It was a case of the office seeking the man?
Mr. OWEN. Yes, the office sought the man; he could not
escape it. Huerta then issued an intimidating decree to raise
the army to 150,000 men, a decree which he could not carry out.
Ou November 20, 1913, the newly elected Mexican Congress
convened. Huerta addressed them and they replied with assur
ances of patriotism, etc., and on December 10, the grand com
mittee of Congress solemnly reported to Huerta that of 14,425
voting precincts, only 7,157 reported, and hence that there had
been no election of a president, under article 42, clause 3, of
the constitution of Mexico. This result (a result which Huerta
had carefully planned, as I have explained, by modifying
the election laws, and then giving secret instructions to his
niilitary governors) they elaborately explained to Huerta, could
be accounted for first, because a part of the territory was in
44915— 13387
revolution, and second, because a part of the territory was
near the revolutionary country, and third, that where the terri
tory was under Huerta’s control the people had not voted for
“ reasons of a general nature.”
They recommended that Huerta continue as President until
a lawful election at some future time when Congress should
issue the necessary declaration.
I sumbit Exhibit 4, a memorial of a committee of the people
of Pueblo and Tlaxcala and addressed to John Lind, showing a
very interesting Mexican point of view. I omit names for
obvious reasons.
Mr. President, I have thought proper 'to put into the R ecord
the documents showing the conduct of this man, because I do
not think the people of the United States sufficiently under
stand the facts relating to our occupation of Vera Cruz. We
are there primarily because of what might be called the straw
that broke the camel’s back, the open and flagrant insult before
the nations of the world o f our flag and of our uniform by the
arrest of our unarmed men and parading them through the
streets of Tampico in derision, and then refusing to make
the amends required by international law. I believe that
Senator Dominguez stated the truth when at the cost of his
life he charged Huerta with the purpose of bringing about a
conflict with the United States. And what was the purpose
of bringing about a conflict with the United States? It was to
save his precious neck, because Zapata, with thousands of
armed men on the south, had sworn to kill Huerta for treason
and murder, and Villa, with more thousands of armed men on
the north, had sworn to take Huerta’s life for treason to
Mexico. So there is only one safe place for Huerta, and that is
under our flag, that would perhaps have mercy on this miser
able wretch, who deserves to be overthrown by his own people
and punished by his own people for his crimes against them.
Mr. WEEKS. Mr. President, before the Senator takes his
seat, I should like to ask him if he thinks that the statement
he has just made will be an aid to the mediators in their labors?
Mr. OWEN. I will say, Mr. President, that I do not think
the mediators will be able to accomplish anything with a man
like Huerta. I will say further, however, that the history
which I have put in the Record here this afternoon in regard
to this man whom we have not recognized, and ought not to
recognize, will in no wise affect the question of mediation. The
mediators will deal with the questions that are laid before them,
but the people of the United States ought to know what manner
of man this is that our Government has refused to recognize, and
I feel justified in giving the reasons for that refusal.
E x h ib i t 1.
R epu bl ic of M e x ic o , 1853, A bstract R odri
quez ’ s E d it io n .
T itle I, S ection 1.— Rights of man.
A rticle 2. In a Republic all are born free.
A rt . 3. Instruction is free.
A rt . 4. Every man is free to engage in any profession, pursuit, or
occupation, and avail himself o f its products.
A rt. 5. (Amended by law of Sept. 25, 1873.) No one shall be com
pelled to do personal work without compensation and without his
full consent.
A rt. 7. (Amended by law of M ay 15, 1883.) Freedom of publication
limited only by the respect due to private life, morals, and public
peace.
449 1 5 — 13387
C o n st it u t io n
of
the
31
A r t . 8. Right to petition guaranteed.
t
A r t . 10. Right to carry arms guaranteed, but the law shall designate
what arms are prohibited.
.
. . . _______
A r t . 1 3 . No one shall be tried according to special l a w s or by special
tribunals.
No persons or corporations shall have privileges or
emoluments not in compensation for public service according to law.
M ilitary trial of criminal cases allowed only for military discipline.
A r t . 14. No retroactive laws shall be enacted.
„
,
A r t . 10. No person shall be molested in his person, family, domicile,
papers, or possessions except under an order in writing..
A rt . 17. No arrest for debts.
Administration of justice shall be
gratuitous, judicial costs being abolished.
. .
A rt . 18. Imprisonment only for crimes deserving corporal punisnm en t; otherwise, liberty on bail.
.
. .
A r t . 19. No detention to exceed three days, unless justified by a
warrant under the law.
Maltreatment during confinement to be
severely punished.
A r t . 20. Guaranties In every criminal trial— ■
t i l Grounds of proceeding and name of accuser made known.
(2) Preliminary examination within 48 hours.
(3) Confronted with witnesses against criminal.
(4) Given all information on record which he may need for his
defense.
(5 ) He shall be heard in his defense.
A rt . 21. Imposition of penalties by judicial authority. Political and
executive authorities to impose fines and imprisonment as disciplinary'
measures and impose fines of not over $500 and imprisonment not
more than one month as disciplinarian measures as the law shall
expressly determine.
A rt. 22. Mutilation, torture, excessive fines, confiscation of property,
corruption of blood prohibited.
A rt . 23. Penalty of death abolished for political offenses and not
imposed except in cases of treason during foreign war, highway rob
bery, arson, parricide, murder in the first degree, grave offenses of
military character, piracy.
A rt . 24. No criminal case shall have more than three instances.
A rt . 26. The quartering of soldiers prohibited in time of peace.
A r t . 27. Private property condemned for public use and upon com
pensation.
A rt . 28. There shall be no monopolies of any kind, whether govern
mental or private, inventions excepted.
A rt . 29. In cases of invasion or disturbance of the public peace, or
other emergency, residents with the advice of the council of ministers
and the approval of Congress or during recess of the permanent com
mittee, may suspend constitution guaranties except those relating to
life.
T i t l e I, S e c t io n 2— Mexicans, nationality and duties.
T it l e I, S e c t io n 3 — Foreigners.
T itle I, S ection 4— Mexican citizenship, right to hold office, etc.
T itle II, S ection 1— National sovereignty and form of government.
A r t . 39. Sovereignty is in the people.
All public power emanates
from the people. The people have at all times the inalienable right to
change the form of their government.
A rt . 40. The States are free and sovereign in all that concerns their
internal government, but united in a federation under the constitution.
A r t . 41. The people exercise their sovereignty through the federal
powers and the State powers.
T itle II, S ection 2— National territory and limits of the States.
T itle III.— Division of powers.
T itle III, S ection 1.— Legislative power.
A r t . 51 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Legislative power vested
in the General Congress, consisting of a Chamber of Deputies and the
Senate.
A r t . 52 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Members of Chamber of
Deputies elected every two years.
A rt . 55. Elections shall be by indirect and secret ballot under the
electoral law.
A r t . 57 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). The office of Deputy and
Senator may not be held by the same person.
.
A r t . 58 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). They may not hold
another federal office without consent of their respective chamber. The
Senate consists of two senators from each State and two for the bedferal District. Election of senators shall be indirect, the legislature of
each State declaring who has obtained the majority of votes cast.
The Senate shall be renewed by half every two years.
44915— 13387
32
A r t . 60 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Each chamber shall be
the judge of the election of its members.
A r t . 62 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Congress shall hold two
sessions each year.
A rt . 64 (amended by law of Nov. 13. 1 8 7 4 ). Action of Congress shall
be in the form of laws or resolutions which shall be communicated to
the Executive after having been signed by the presidents of both
chambers, etc.
A rt . 65 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). The right to originate
legislation belongs to the President and to the deputies and senators
or to the State legislature.
A rt . 69 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). The Executive shall
transmit to the Chamber of Deputies on the last day of the session
accounts for the year and the budget for the next year.
A r t . 71 (amended by law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Bills and resolutions
passed by both chambers and approved by the Executive shall be imme
diately published. Bills or resolutions rejected by the Executive may
be passed by a majority in each House.
Special sessions of Congress.
A rt . 72. (Amended by law of Nov. 13, 1874, Dec. 14, 1883, June 2,
1882, Apr. 24, 1896.) Congress shall have power to admit new
states, to form new states upon certain conditions, to establish con
ditions of loans on the credit of the nation and to approve said
loans, to recognize and order the payment of the national debt, to fix
duties on foreign commerce, to create or abolish federal offices and to
fix their salaries, to declare war, to regulate Issuance of letters of
marque, taking of prizes on sea or land, the maritime law of peace
or war, to grant or refuse permission of foreign troops to enter the
republic, to establish mints, regulate the value and kinds of national
com, to make rules for the occupation and sale of public lands, to
grant pardons, to appoint at a joint session of both chambers a presi
dent of the republic who shall act in case of absolute or temporary
vacancy of the presidency, either as a substitute or as a president
ad interim.
The chamber of deputies has power to exercise its power regarding
the appointments of a constitutional president of the republic, justices
of the supreme court and senators of the federal d istrict; to pass
upon the resignations of the president of the republic, justices of the
supreme court, and to grant leaves of absence requested by the presi
dent ; to supervise the comptroller of the trea su ry; to formulate ar
ticles of impeachment; to approve the annual budget and originate
taxation.
The senate has power to approve the trea ties; to confirm certain
nominations made by the President; to authorize sending troops out
side of the Republic; to consent to the presence of fleets of another
nation for more than one month in the waters of the Republic; to
declare when the constitutional powers of any State have disappeared
and the moment has arrived to give said State a provisional governor,
who shall order elections to be held according to the constitutional law
of the S ta te ; such governor shall be appointed by the Executive, with
the approval of the senate or, in time of recess, by the permanent com
mittee ; to decide any political questions which may arise between the
powers of a State or when constitutional order has been interrupted by
an armed conflict In consequence of such political questions; to sit as a
court of impeachment.
A rt . 73. During the recess of Congress there shall be a permanent
committee consisting of 29 members, 15 deputies, and 14 senators ap
pointed by their respective chambers.
A rt . 74 (amended by the law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). The permanent com
mittee shall have power to consent to the use of the national guard
as mentioned in article 7 2 ; to call by its own motion or that of the
Executive an extra session of either or both cham bers; to approve ap
pointments under article 85.
T it l e III, S ection 2.— E xecutive power.
A rt . 76. Election of President shall be by indirect, secret ballot under
the electoral law.
A rt . 78. The president shall enter upon his duties December 1 and
serve for four years.
A r t . 79. (Amended by the law of Oct. 3, 1882, and Apr. 24, 1896.)
In case of absolute vacancy except upon resignation and in the case o f temporary vacancy except upon leave of absence, the executive power
shall vest in the secretary of foreign relations, etc.
Congress shall assemble on the day next following to elect by a
majority a substitute President, etc.
In case o f resignation of the President Congress shall assemble as
indicated for the purpose of appointing a substitute (acting) President
44915— 13387
In case o f temporary vacancy Congress shall appoint a President ad
A request for leave of absence shall be addressed to the Chamber of
Deputies, to he voted on in the Congress in joint session.
If on the day appointed the President elected by the people should
not enter upon his duties, Congress shall at once appoint a President
ad interim if the vacancy prove temporary ; but if the vacancy prove
absolute, Congress, after appointing the President ad interim, shall
order a special election. The elected President shall serve out the
unexpired constitutional term.
„
.
„ .
The vacancy of substitute President and President ad interim shall be
filled in the same manner.
A rt . 83. (Amended by the law of Apr. 24, 1896.) Form of oath to
be administered to the President.
Art. 85. The President has power to promulgate and execute the
laws, appoint and remove certain officers, to appoint with the approval
of Congress certain officers, to dispose of the permanent land and sea
forces and national guard for the defense of the Republic, to declare
war after the passage of the necessary law by Congress, to conduct
diplomatic negotiations and make treaties, to call with the approval of
the permanent committee an extra session of Congress, to grant pardons
according to law.
T itle III, S ection 3.— Judicial power.
A rt . 90. The judicial powers vested in a Supreme Court and in theDistrict and Circuit Courts.
A rt . 91. The Supreme Court shall consist of 11 justices, etc.
A rt. 92. The Supreme Court justices shall serve for six years and
their election shall be indirect in accordance with the electoral law.
A rt. 95. No resignation of a justice allowed, except for grave cause,
approved by the Congress or the permanent committee.
A rts. 97, 98, 99, and 100. Jurisdiction of federal tribunals.
A rt . 101. Federal tribunals shall decide all questions arising out of
laws or acts violating individual guaranties and encroaching upon or
restricting the sovereignty of States invading the sphere of federal
authority.
T itle IV .— Responsibility of public functionaries.
Art. 103 (amended by the law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). Members of Con
gress, of the Supreme Court, and of the Cabinet shall be responsible
for the common offenses committed by them during their term of office
and for their crimes, misdemeanors, or omissions in the exercise of
their functions. The governors of the States shall be responsible for
the violation of the Federal Constitution and laws. The President
shall be likewise responsible, but during his term he can be charged
only with treason, violation of the Constitution, of the electoral law,
and grave common offenses
A rt . 104 (amended by the law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). In case of
common offense, the Chamber of Deputies shall sit as a grand jury and
declare by majority whether proceedings should be instituted. If the
vote is affirmative, the accused shall be placed at the disposal of the
ordinary courts.
Art. 105 (amended by the law of Nov. 13, 1 8 7 4 ). In cases o f im
peachment. the Chamber of Deputies shall act as grand jury and the
Senate as a tribunal.
If the grand jury declares by a majority vote,
the accused shall be impeached.
A rt. 106. No pardon can be granted In cases of impeachment.
A rt. 107. Responsibility for official crimes and misdemeanors en
forceable only while in office or one year thereafter.
A rt . 108. In civil cases, no privilege or Immunity in favor of any
public functionary shall be recognized.
T itle V.— States of the Federation.
Art. 109 (amended by the laws of May 5, 1878, and Oct. 21, 1 8 8 7 ).
The State shall adopt a republican, representative, and popular form
of Government.
A rt . 110. States may fix between themselves their respective bound
aries.
A rt . I l l (amended by law of May 1, 1 8 9 6 ). States can not enter
into alliances, treaties, or coalitions with another State or foreign
n a tio n ; coin money, issue paper money, stamps or stamped paper; tax
interstate traffic and commerce.
A rt . 112. States can not without consent of Congress impose port
d u tie s; have troops or vessels of war, except in case of invasion or
Imminent peril.
A rt . 113. States are bound to return fugitives from justice.
Art. 114. States are bound to enforce the Federal laws.
44915— 13387
SB
34
A kt . 116. The Federal Government is bound to protect the States
from invasion.
In case of insurrection or internal disturbance it shall
give them the same protection, provided request is made for same.
T itle V I.— General provisions.
A k t . 117. Powers not expressly granted to Federal authorities are
reserved to the States.
A kt . 122. In time of peace no military authorities shall exercise
other functions than those connected with military discipline, etc.
A rt . 124 (amended by act of May 1, 1 8 9 6 ). The Federal Govern
ment has exclusive power to levy duties on imports, exports, and tran
sient goods, and regulate or forbid circulation of all kinds of goods
regardless o f their origin, for sake of public safety or for police rea
sons.
A rt . 126. The constitution, the laws of Congress, and the treaties
shall be the supreme law of the Union.
T it l e V II.— Amendments to the constitution.
A rt . 127. Amendments must be agreed to by two-thirds vote of the
Members present in the Congress and approved by a majority of legisla
tures of the States. The Congress shall count the votes of the legisla
tures and declare whether the amendments have been, adopted.
T it l e V II I.— Inviolability of the constitution.
A rt . 128. The constitution shall not lose its force and vigor even
If interrupted by a rebellion. I f by reason of public disturbance a
government contrary to its principles is established, the constitution
shall be restored as soon as the people regain their liberty, and the
people figuring in the rebellion shall be tried under the constitution
and the provisions of laws under the constitution.
E x h ib i t 2.
[Translation.]
R e so lu tio n State of C o a h u il a .
Venustlano Carranza, Constitutional Governor of the Free and Sov
ereign State of Coahuila de Zaragoza, to the inhabitants thereof, know
y e : That the Congress of said State has decreed as fo llo w s:
The twenty-second Constitutional Congress of the Free and Sover
eign State of Coahuila decrees:
A r t . 1. Gen. Victoriano Huerta is not recognized in his capacity
as Chief Executive of the Republic, which office he says was conferred
upon him by the Senate, and any acts and measures which he may per
form or take in such capacity are likewise not recognized.
A rt . 2. Extraordinary powers are conferred upon the Executive of
the State in all the branches of the public administration, so that he
may abolish those which he may deem suitable, and so that he may
proceed to arm forces to cooperate in maintaining the constitutional
order of things in the Republic.
“ E c o n o m ic :” The Governments of the remaining States, and the
commanders of the federal, rural, and auxiliary forces of the Fed
eration, should be urged to second the attitude of the Government of
this State.
Given in the H all of Sessions of the Honorable Congress of the
State, at Saltillo, February 19, 1913.
A . B arrera , D eputy, Presiding.
J. S an ch e z H errera , D eputy, Secretary.
G abr iel C alzada , D eputy, Secretary.
Let this be printed, communicated, and observed.
S a l t i l l a , February j
V e n u st ia n o C arranza .
E. G arza P erez , Secretary General.
E x h i b i t 3.
[Translation.]
R e solution State of Sonora .
Special com m ittee.— The executive of the State is pleased to submit
to the settlement of the local legislature the present conflict of the
State in relation to the supreme executive power of the Republic, the
statement whereof appears in the official note referred to the opinion
of the undersigned committee. The committee has before it a case
which is extraordinary and without precedent in the history of this
legislature, and therefore there are no precedents to be consulted in
order to enlighten its opinion in the matter, so that in order to express
the present opinion we have been obliged to measure its transcendent
importance and to consult the laws and opinions which may add Ught
and force to our deficiency in the matter in question, so that we may
44915— 13387
I' , 101$.
offer, and submit to the deliberation of this assembly, a proposition
which shall emanate from our consciences honestly, patriotically, ana
calmly.
The axis about which the question propounded turns is the legality
or illegality of the appointment of Gen. Victoriano Huerta as pro
visional President of the Republic. We believe, like the Executive, that
the high representative capacity conferred upon the aforesaid Gen.
Huerta can not be recognized a s ’ constitutional.
A s a matter of fact, the apprehension of Messrs. Francisco I. Madero
and Jose Maria Pino Suarez, President and Vice President of the
Republic, and their cabinet, took place in contravention of article 103
of the constitution of the Republic and the supreme law of May 0, 1904,
In these texts it is prescribed that the President and Vice President of
the Republic may be impeached only for high treason, express violation
of the constitution, attack upon the electoral freedom, and grave
offenses in the realm of common law. This provision was violated, for
Messrs. Madero and Pino Suarez were apprehended without any im
peachment having been made before Congress, which grand jury ought
to have decided whether proceedings were to be taken or not against
the said officials. From the second of the documents sent as exhibits
by the governor of the State it is seen that subsequently it was desired
to clothe with a pretended legality the designation of Gen. Huerta by
saying that Messrs. Madero and Pino Suarez had resigned their posts ;
that the presidency had passed to Mr. Laseurain, minister of foreign
relations; that the latter had resigned; and that Gen. Huerta had
thereupon been designated President
Now that, in our opinion, the
culminating point of the question has been defined, it becomes appro
priate to connect it with the government of the State of Sonora. The
aforementioned article 103 of the federal constitution says that the
governors of the States are responsible for infraction of the federal
constitution and laws. Would not the recognition of Gen. Huerta as
President of the Republic, now that it has been established that said
presidency was occupied in express violation of the constitution, imply
responsibility on the part of the governor of the State of Sonora? The
constitution has been violated, and to approve this violation is to
become an accomplice in the crime itself. Now, the undersigned com
mittee believes that it behooves the Executive to make the declaration
urgently demanded by the secretary of the interior of the Huerta
cabinet according to the last of the exhibits sent to said Executive.
But inasmuch as this assembly is in turn confronted with a question o f
the greatest concern to the destinies of the nation, and as it has a
high patriotic duty to perform in these solemn moments of our history,
the undersigned committee, on the strength of Section X I I I of article 67
of the political constitution of the State, and in view of the statement
made by the Executive in the official note serving as a basis for this
report, has the honor to propose a bill (draft of a law) of the tenor
given below.
Honorable chamber, we believe that we have honestly
and patriotically fulfilled our duty to pass upon the momentous matter
submitted to our opinion. W e are firmly convinced that the proposition
which we have framed is that which is warranted by the dignitv of
our State ; and if owing to the deficiency of our knowledge there should
be any error in the opinion submitted to the most illustrious of you,
we at least have the satisfaction of having fulfilled the duties imposed
upon us by our conscience. The bill which we submit to the delibera
tion of the honorable chamber is as fo llo w s :
LAW
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTIVE TO REFUSE RECOGNITION
VICTORIANO HUERTA AS PRESIDENT OF MEXICO.
TO
GEN,
A rtice 1. The legislature of the free and sovereign State of Sonora
does not recognize Gen. Victoriano Huerta as provisional president of
the Mexican Republic.
A rt . 2. The executive is urged to utilize the powers conferred upon
him by the political constitution of the State.
DECREE NO. 1.
A r t icle 1. The branches of the Federal administration are pro
visionally (placed) in charge of the State and (made) subject to the
laws and provisions of the latter.
A rt . 2. The making of any payment, for the purposes referred to in
the foregoing article, to any office not subject to the executive power
of Sonora and existing therein is prohibited.
A rt . 3. The said executive power shall provide for the organization
and operation of the services belonging to the executive of the Union,
attending to everything concerning the branches referred to.
44915— 13387
36
DECREE NO. 2.
A r t i c l e 1. The frontier custom houses of Agua Prieta and Nogales
are hereby qualified and opened up to international import and export
A rt . 2. In all matters contrary to the special laws and provisions of
the State there shall be observed the general customs orders of June 12,
1891, and the schedules concerned, together with their additions and
revisions in force.
A rt . 3. The import duties are reduced 20 per cent and the 5 per cent
additional which has been being paid is hereby abolished.
Art. 4. The exportation of cattle and horses shall be assessed as
follow s:
(а ) Cattle, $2.50 a head.
(б) Horses, broken in, $10 per head.
(c) Horses, wild, $5 per head.
I therefore order this printed, published, and circulated for due en
forcement.
Given at the palace of the executive of the State, at Hermosillo,
March 24, 1913.
I gnacio L. P esq u eir a .
L orenzo R ozado , Secretary General.
N ote .— This document above is taken from the Diario de los Debates
(Journal of Debates), of the City o f Mexico, which in turn took it
from the Official Gazette, of Sonora, and It was at the permanent
session of the legislature of Sonora, held on March 5, that the com
mittee gave the opinion referred to, and it was approved.
E x h ib i t 4.
M em orial
from a C o m m it t e e R epresenting t h e
St at es of P uebla and T l ax cala to M r.
P eople of t h e
L ind .
S ir : In our name and in that of the people of the States of Puebla
and Tlaxcala. whose general and almost unanimous sentiments we
voice, we address you with the request that you bring to the atten
tion of His Excellency Woodrow Wilson the fact that, as a matter
of equity and justice, and considering that he has heard the side of
public functionaries and sympathizers of the Huerta Government and
of some of the rebels in the frontier of our country, as well as the
opinions of Americans residing among us, we, as the genuine repre
sentatives of the true people, be given a chance to give our views on
the political situation of the country, as it would not be in keeping
with the well-known sense of justice of His Excellency Woodrow
W ilson to listen only to one side and to ignore the opinion of the
Mexican people, expressed in divers ways, and which we know is
regarded by you as the principal means to guide your opinion concern
ing the international issue of the day.
We trust that you as well as His Excellency President Wilson will
regard this memorial as a mark of courtesy, shown in this way to
you, the President of the American Union and the people of the United
States, whose Chief Executive we regard as a sincere and great friend
of ours.
W e abstain on account of official persecution from sending vou our
credentials as the representatives we claim to be.
Although we feel certain that the Department of State in Washington
must be in possession of ample information concerning the present
political situation of Mexico, we nevertheless do not consider it officious
to refer to the events which took place between the 9th and the 18th
of February last, in order that you may hear the opinion of the people
on the following points, to w i t : 1st. The illegality of the Government
of Gen. H u e rta ; second, the legality of the revolution of the Constitu
tional P a r ty ; and, third, the serious consequences which would natu
rally follow the recognition of the Huerta Government by that of the
United States, and which would tend to definitely establish the same.
THE ILLEGALITY OF THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT.
First. The revolution of 1910 was an act by which the Mexican
people invoked the right it had under article 39 of the Constitution of
the Republic, which reads as follows :
“ A r t i c l e 39. The sovereignty of the nation is essentially and origi
nally vested in the people
A ll public power emanates directly from
the people and is instituted for its benefit.
The people have at all
times the right to alter or modify the form of its government.”
If the revolution headed by Gen. Felix Diaz on February 9 had been
popular, it would have been legitimate and justified, because then it
would have been initiated by the only body of men who, under the con
stitution had the right to start it— that is, the people— and therefore
44915— 13387
any Government emanating from a revolution of this kind will be recog
nized as a legitimate and justifiable Government.
As a matter of fact, the ostensible and apparent authors of the abovementioned revolution were Gens. Bernardo Reyes, Felix Diaz, Manuel
Mondragon, and Gregorio Ruiz, together with other officers of the
army, who caused the men in the School of Aspirantes, of one regiment
of light artillery, two regiments of mounted artillery, three regiments
of cavalry, and the Twentieth Infantry to mutiny.
The people remained in an attitude of expectancy, due to its sur
prise and lack of organization, but its sympathy was with President
Madero, and if it did not go to his rescue it was because the President
did not call on the people.
It was also because he still had faith in
the discipline and loyalty of the rest of the army.
But while it is true that the people did not take up the defense of
the Government, it did not join the rebels, for which reason the revo
lution was strictly military, and for this reason it lacked the sanc
tion of article 39 of the constitution of Mexico. The rebels did ask
the people to join them, but they were not. in sympathy with it, and
therefore the Government which resulted from the movement in ques
tion is lacking in constitutional foundation.
Second. Due to the fact that on February 15 o f this year, His E x
cellency Henry Lane W ilson, convened several members of the diplo
matic corps in the building of the embassy and informed them of the
coming arrival in Mexican waters of several American vessels and
transports with troops for landing, and that it was his firm and de
cided opinion that 3,000 marines would land on Mexican soil and march
to the capital, the Mexican Senate, during an extra session held on the
above-mentioned day, decided to ask the resignations of the President
and Vice President of the Republic.
This act was nevertheless un
successful.
W e inclose herewith copy of the minutes of the session referred to,
as inclosure No. 1.
In view of the above failure nine senators went, on the 18th of
February last, to the office of the military commander of the City of
Mexico, Gen. Victoriano Huerta, in order to induce him or convince
him with all kinds of glowing promises to force the above function
aries to resign. Huerta finally acceded, and with his protection and
complicity the above-mentioned senators called on President Madero
in order to force him to resign.
Having failed in their efforts, they
called on Gen. Garcia Pena, minister of war, and told him that the
army of the nation should depose the President of the Republic, but
the honorable general refused to take the hint.
The decision of the Senate to which we have referred, as well as
the acts of the nine senators which followed it, are unconstitutional,
inasmuch as article 72, nor any other provision of the constitution,
empowers the Senate or any of its members to request or force the
President of the Republic to resign.
Any senator or authority who
does not act within the law and commits acts of violence or of a
criminal character is criminally responsible for them, even though
he may commit them in his capacity as a senator or authority o f any
character.
Third. The senators and Gen. Huerta having taken note of the firm
attitude of the minister of war in favor of the President, Huerta and
the senators, considered from that moment as rebellious to the execu
tive power, directed Gen. Aurelio Blanquet to arrest the President
and Vice President at the National Palace and to do this in the name
of the army.
When this was done Huerta assumed power and sent all over the
country the notice appearing as inclosure 2.
The above acts of violence are also unconstitutional inasmuch as
they violate the provisions of the constitution of Mexico.
Therefore, the government which emanated from the second revo
lution is like the Felix Diaz uprising, contrary to the principles sanc
tioned by the constitution.
Fourth. The transitory government of Gen. Huerta was sanctioned
by a pact signed by Huerta and Diaz, the former aided by Lient. Col.
Joaquin M aas and Engineer Enrique Cepeda and the latter by Attorneys
Fidencio Hernandez and Rodolfo Reyes.
Both rebel generals agreed through this pact to prevent by all means
the reestablishment of the legitimate government represented exclu
sively by President Madero and Vice President Pino S u arez; and it
was also agreed that Gen. Huerta would assume power at the earliest
possible convenience.
(Huerta had already assumed it on his own
authority.)
W e inclose herewith a full copy, under Inclosure 3, of the above
agreement, called the pact of Ciudadela.
44915— 13387
It is evident that in order to establish the government of Gen.
Huerta the constitution was completely ignored and supplanted by the
Ciudadela agreement, which confined itself to sanction the military
uprising, the acts of violence of Gens. Huerta and Blanquet, to de
pose the President and Vice President of the Republic, to divest them of
their investiture, and to permit lluerta to usurp the executive power
of the nation.
Things have developed since February 18 in such a way that there
is no room for doubting that the above pact has been the directing
force of the present government.
In fact, the first clause of the above-mentioned pact indicates with
out doubt that the murders of Messrs. Madero and Pino Suarez, imme
diately after the decision of the legislature of the State of Coahuila
became known in the capital, and by which decision, dated the 19th
of February, Gen. Huerta was not recognized as President of the Re
public, were perpetrated with no other purpose than to prevent the
reestablishment of the legitimate government.
ALL
OF THAT
IS
CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES SANCTIONED
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC.
BY
THE
Such is the origin of the government of Gen. Huerta, and it matters
not that 72 hours later they may have attempted to give it a constitu
tional form, inasmuch as the old principle of international law which
reads, “ That which is null in principle is void in its effects,” and more
so if it is borne in mind that the whole thing was done to put into
effect the pact of the Ciudadela, which is not, so to say, the Federal
pact, which is the fundamental and supreme law of the land.
Now, then, all events from February 18 ahead and which gave rise
to the government of Gen. Huerta, and in spite of the claim they make
that it is a matter of “ consummated facts,” are criminal, illegal, and
void and they are so considered in article 128 of the Mexican consti
tution, a provision which to this date seems to have been ignored, not
withstanding its importance as a fundamental law.
The article in question reads as fo llo w s :
“ A r t . 128. The constitution shall not lose its force and vigor, even
though because of a rebellion its enforcement may be suspended.
In
case that by means of a public disturbance a government contrary to
the constitution may be established, as soon as the people regains its
freedom, the observance of it shall be enforced, and in accordance with
it and with the provisions which may have been dictated pursuant
to it, all those who may have figured in the government established
by the revolution, and those who may have been their accomplices
be tried.”
This shows your excellency the full force of article 128 of the
constitution against the government of Gen. Huerta, and this also
shows the motives o f basis of the constitutional rebellion which is
growing in the heart of the people, and which shall not permit the
continuation in power of Gen. Huerta, nor any other government
emanating from a military rebellion.
Therefore, to make an effort to legitimize or to recognize the inter
national character of a government which has emanated from a
military rebellion, simply because of “ consummated facts,” means to
set aside the constitution of Mexico, and to legitimize and recognize
a crime which, though it may have been perpetrated, does not fail to
be punishable, nor does it cause article 128 of the constitution to be
inoperative.
, ^
.
..
, ,
An act of this kind would be the equivalent of recognizing the
right of a thief to the thing stolen.
Therefore, the above pretension, being founded on so frail a founda
tion, is repudiated by morals, civilization, and common la w ; and for
this reason the Washington Government would be responsible of com
m itting a most lamentable moral and legal error should it recognize the
government of Gen. Huerta as a legitimate government, and would
recognize it as an international entity.
THE LEGITIMACY OF THE REVOLUTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALISTAS. .
First. I f the people were lacking in organization at the beginning of
the uprising in order to defend the rights they were divested from by
the army which overthrew the Executive elected according to the laws,
so soon as it has been able to organize itself into a body it has risen
in arms against the usurper, invoking the principle sanctioned by article
39 of the constitution.
The above rights are at the base or the revolution and are deeply
rooted in the heart of the Mexican people whose attitude tends to prove
that neither public opinion nor the mass of the people have ever sanc-
44915— 13387
39
tioned the present Government. There are a few newspapers in the City
of Mexico speaking for the Government, but they do not represent the
sentiments of the people or of the popular m in d ; they are voicing purely
and simply the personal views of their publishers,_ all of whom are under
the orders of the minister of gohernacion (U rrutia).
Second. The constitutional government of the free and sovereign
State of Coahuila, acting in observance of a decree of its legislature,
dated February 19, this year, by which the governor of the State was
authorized to " disregard the Government of Gen. Victoriano Huerta
and not to recognize any of the acts emanating from this Government.
Article second of the same decree of the legislature of Coahuila author
ized the governor to arm troops in order to maintain the constitutional
order.
Third. The Legislature of the State of Sonora, legally constituted
and acting in accordance with the law, approved a decree by which
the Government of Gen. Huerta was not recognized. A copy of the
decree is herewith inclosed.
Fourth. Article 128 of the federal constitution vests the people
with power and tacitly expects it to defend and maintain the integrity
of the laws, when it reads “ as soon as the people may recover its
liberty.”
Two constitutional decrees emanating from two legally constituted
governments of two States are a sufficient base for the present revo
lution of the Constitutional Party. Those two decrees are Its legal
foundation.
III.
SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES OF THE DEFINITE ESTABLISHMENT
GOVERNMENT OF GEN. V. HUERTA.
OF
THE
In the first place it would establish precedent for all the armies of
the world, that they could rise in arms and depose their respective
rulers and place themselves in their stead, if they would feel that
the recognition of the world would be forthcoming simply on the
plea of ‘‘ consummated facts.”
W hat happened yesterday in Mexico could happen in the future in
Germany, Russia, England, or the United States, where, with refer
ence to the latter country, the Republican Party, sympathizing with
Porfirista, or Huertista party of Mexico, places President Woodrow
Wilson on a parallel with Madero, and says that the spirit of the
latter has reincarnated in the American President.
W hat would happen with the laws of a country if they were at
the mercy of the army? W hat would happen to a country where the
army instead of being the support would be the arbiter of the govern
ment?
W hat would it mean to relegate the will and laws of the
people to the caprice of the army?
In view of the above we believe that the “ Mexico case ” is of
interest not only to our country, hut it concerns all other nations.
As a matter of precaution and future policy the Government of Gen.
Huerta should not he recognized.
W e are of the opinion that coup d’etat should be suppressed for
ever, leaving the question of changing or modifying the form of gov
ernment to the people, as vox populi vox dei.
The third Pan-American Conference, which took place at Rio de
Janeiro, took the initiative by recommending that government growing
out of an act of violence should not he recognized, and we hope that
America may be the first to follow this principle in connection with the
“ Mexico case.”
Besides, the government of Gen. Huerta is politically and finan
cially connected with many European interests.
It is stated soto
voce, for example, that Mexico w ill not press the contention about
the Clipperton Islands and will allow France to win out in payment
of its recognition of the Huerta government.
It appears that it is on this acount that Huerta revoked the ap
pointment he had made of Lio de la Barra, as envoy near the court
of Italy.
Spain is being given all kinds of encouragement to acquire practi
cally full control of the land interests of the country.
A ll of the above acts are an outrage against the Mexican nation and
i ntrary to the Monroe doctrine.
W ith reference to England, it is well known how important a rOle
has been played by Lord Cowdray and to what extent he would rule
were the Huerta government to become definitely affirmed.
As a consequence of the above Europe would increase its political,
financial, and even military influence in Mexico, much to our detri
ment and contrary to the Monroe doctrine.
44915— 18387
We will therefore propose, as a part of the opinions you may have
gathered while here, for the information of His Excellency Woodrow
Wilson :
First. That the government of Gen. Huerta be not recognized.
Second. That if Washington recognizes the government of Huerta,
it should simultaneously recognize the belligerence of the rebels.
Third. That as a matter of humanity the decree which prevents
the exportation of arms, ammunition, and war material to countries
south of the United States be r
W e say that this be done
order to
facilitate the means by which
_ . H
__ _
Union in
hands of the Constitutional Party to pacify the country and avoid
further bloodshed.
If otherwise, the W ashington Government, acting under a strange
moral rule or other motive, would recognize the Huerta Government
and refuse to recognize the belligerency of the rebels, such act would
serve only to prolong the state of war in this country, as the patriotic
elements of the country would never give in nor tolerate the gov
ernment of General Huerta.
W e will say before ending that foreign residents will have the
fullest protection from the constitutional rebels, and if the requests
of the revolution are granted in full or in part this will serve to
bring Mexico and the United States much closer in their diplomatic
relations.
Please accept the assurances of our highest consideration.
In the name of the com m ittee:
(Names omitted.)
To the Honorable J o h n L i n d ,
Confidential E n vo y of the President
of the United States of America.
44915— 13387
ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH OF
THOMAS JEFFERSON
ADDRESS
OF
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF
OKLAHOMA
D E L IV E R E D IN N E W Y O R K C I T Y
A P R IL 13, 1908
PRINTED IN THE
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
JUNE 25, 1910
WASHINGTON
1910
51007—f315
A D D R E S S
OF
II ON.
EOBERT
L.
OWEN.
AN ADD It E S S BY ROBERT L. O W EN IN N EW YO RK ON T H E A N N IV E R SA R Y OF
T H E B IR T H D A Y OF T H O M A S J E F F E R S O N , A P R IL
13, 1908.
Mr.
P resident and G en tle m e n of t h e N ational D emocratic
C lub : It has been one hundred and sixty-five years since the birth of
Thomas Jefferson— the patron saint of the Democracy.
In the cen
turies to come the dignity and the value of this great intelligence and
of this great heart will rise higher and higher in the estimation of
man, for the birth of no man since the birth of Christ has been so serv
iceable to his fellow-men.
We do well annually to assemble and burn incense on the altar in
his memory— the man who taught religious liberty and the first to
write it in the statutes of V irgin ia; the man who taught freedom of
speech; who put an end to entailed estates, overthrew the law of primo
geniture, and in 1777 introduced in the Virginia assembly the first
bill providing universal education and the first hill to forbid dueling;
who established the University of V irgin ia; the man who condemned
monopoly and slavery, and pointed out their dangerous tendencies ; the
man, above all other things, who loved his fellow-men and trusted them,
and regarded them as his brothers and worthy to govern themselves ;
the man who stood firmly for a strict construction of the Constitu
tion, who maintained the reserved rights of the States and of the peo
ple of the States ; a man whose ideas of government were so sound and
so true that within a few short years his doctrines— opposition to slavery
excepted— were established in the hearts and minds of all of the people
of the United States, so that there was in effect only one party in the
decade following his presidency.
OKLAHOMA.
You Eastern sons of the National Democracy may fancy that Okla
homa is a long way off and has but few ties with Thomas Jefferson, but
I call your attention to the fact that the purest Jeffersonian democracy
upon the continent is in the heart of Oklahoma— all of the teachings
of Thomas Jefferson are vitally active in the constitution of Oklahoma.
Oklahoma is more indebted to Thomas Jefferson than is New York, be
cause Thomas Jefferson, in the Louisiana Purchase, acquired by pur
chase the very soil of Oklahoma, and made many republics where one
empire had controlled. The people who first settled Oklahoma carried
with them the liveliest memories of Thomas Jefferson. Among the first
settlers of Oklahoma was my Indian grandfather, a leader of the
Clierokees, who carried with him as a precious memory a silver medal,
which I now show you, given to him by Thomas Jefferson. On the one
side is a medallion of Jefferson and the inscription, “ Th. Jefferson, Pres
ident of the U. S., A. I). 1801,” and on the other side, embossed, are
two hands in friendly grasp, with the legend “ Peace and friendship.”
51007— 9315
'
3
In the most beautiful part of the Cherokee Nation I have a country
place named for the residence of Thomas Jefferson, and called Monticello. A t this country place the great-great-granddaughter of Thomas
Jefferson gave birth to two of his descendants, Adalaide and Pattie
Morris.
Oklahoma has many ties binding that great Commonwealth to Thomas
Jefferson, hut chief of all are the intellectual and spiritual ties, drawn
from the soul of Thomas Jefferson, establishing great principles of gov
ernment necessary to the welfare and the happiness of man.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.
The great doctrine of religious freedom taught by Jefferson is found
recorded in the Oklahoma bill of rights, section 5 :
“ Sec. 5. No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, ap
plied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for
the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such.”
The right of free speech is written in the same bill of rights, section
22, as fo llo w s:
“ S ec. 22. Every person may freely speak, write, or publish his senti
ments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that r ig h t;
and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech
or of the press.
In all criminal prosecutions for libel, the truth of
the matter alleged to be libelous may be given in evidence to the jury,
and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous
be true, and was written or published with good motives and for justi
fiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.”
And the principle of universal education is there adopted (Art. X I I I ) :
‘‘(S ection 1. The legislature shall establish and maintain a system of
free public schools wherein all the children of the State may be edu
cated.
“ (S ec . 2. The legislature shall provide for the establishment and
support of institutions for the care and education of the deaf, dumb,
and blind of the State.”
“ A rt . X X I . Educational, reformatory, and penal institutions and
those for the benefit of the insane, blind, deaf, and mute, and such
other institutions as the public good may require, shall be established
and supported by the State in such manner as may be prescribed by
law.”
NO SLAVERY.
Thomas Jefferson was strongly opposed to slavery, as he Indicated
In many ways.
In his letter to E. Rutledge (1787) he stated :
“ This abomination must have an end. And there is a superior
bench reserved in heaven for those who hasten it.”
In the proposed Virginia constitution he submitted :
“ No person hereafter coming into this country shall be held within
the same in slavery under any pretext whatever.”
(June, 1776.)
And also the follo w in g:
“ The general assembly (of Virginia) shall not have power to * * •
permit the Introduction of any more slaves to reside in this State,
or the continuance of slavery beyond the generation which shall be
living on the 31st day of December, 1 8 0 0 ; all persons born after that
date being hereby declared free.”
51007— 9315
In commenting on the deplorable results of slavery, Thomas Jef
ferson said :
“ The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual ex
ercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting depotism
on the one part, and degrading submissions on the other. Our children
see this, and learn to imitate i t ; for man is an imitative animal. This
quality is the germ of education in m an ; from his cradle to his grave
he is learning to do what he sees others do.”
And he also said :
“ Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people
that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be
violated, but with liis wrath ? Indeed, I tremble for my country when
I reflect that God is j u s t ; that his justice can not sleep forever ; that
considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the
wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible even ts;
that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The A l
mighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest.”
My fellow-citizens, I comment upon these doctrines of the patron
saint of the Democracy, because it was a failure on the part of the
Democratic party to develop and observe this one teaching of Jefferson,
which resulted in the retirement of that party from national control
during the last half century.
I have always thought that it was a providential thing for the poor
ignorant blacks of Africa that they should have been brought in con
tact with the civilized races, even though it was through slavery, be
cause it led to their gradual improvement from savage life. Ultimately,
however, it was the unhappy influence of slavery which caused the
original Democratic party to go to defeat in I86 0 .
Thousands and
hundreds of thousands of men, who, previously to that time, had been
Jeffersonian Democrats, felt that Jefferson's opinion with regard to
slavery was r ig h t; that the continuance of slavery was equally harmful
both to master and slave, and, under the leadership of Abraham Lin
coln, they first set their faces against the extension of slavery to the
Territories of the United States. Abraham Lincoln, in his speech at
Ottawa, 111., on August 2, 1858, in reply to Douglas, s a id :
“ I will say here while upon this subject that I have no purpose,
either directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery
in the States where it exists. I believe that I have not the lawful right
to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”
But, as the contention proceeded, those original Jeffersonian Demo
crats who opposed slavery became more and more resolved against it,
until such men, under the new name of the Republican party, deter
mined upon the complete abolishment of slavery in this country.
The same spirit of American liberty which determined that the
slavery of the black man under the forms of law should not exist in
this country will stand against the enslavement of white men by mo
nopolies under a more artful form of law. Organized gigantic monopo
lies have invaded every field, controlling the volume and rate of wages
paid to labor, and controlling the purchasing power of the wages 0u!
labor when paid.
Lincoln was opposed to the extension of the slavery of black men, and
before his term of office was out he already was foreseeing the danger
of the enslavement of white men.
He foresaw the danger to the
humbler tolling citizen of arrogant organized capital, and in his first
message to Congress pointed It out.
51007— 9315
6
Among other things he s a id :
“ Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital Is only the
fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first ex
isted. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protec
tion as any other rights.
“ No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil
up from poverty— none less inclined to take or touch aught which they
have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political
power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely
be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to
fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be
lost.”
The monopoly of various industries by skillfully organized capital has
such control now that laborers by thousands and hundreds of thousands
and millions are dependent for employment on those whose policy and
interest may be served by the discharge of these laborers. The giant
corporations deem it judicious, in cases, to restrict the output ip order
io raise the price, and thus dismiss labor at one door and raise the
price to the laborer as consumer at the other door— deny him wages
with one hand and raise prices on him with the other.
Monopoly
means ultimate mastery on the one side and slavery on the other.
Monopoly means mastery of the one man and coequal servitude of the
other man.
NO MONOPOLY.
Thomas Jefferson vigorously opposed monopoly of every kind excent
as a reward for literature and invention. He opposed monopoly in
land.
He pointed out the terrible effects of monopoly of land in France
in 1785 as follo w s:
“ The property of France is absolutely concentrated In a very few
hands, having revenues of from half a million of guineas a year down
wards. These employ the flower of the country as servants, some of
them having as many of 200 domestics, not laboring. They employ also
a great number of manufacturers and tradesmen and, lastly, the class
of laboring husbandmen. But, after all, there comes the most nu
merous of all the classes— that is. the poor, who can not find work. I
asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permit
ted to beg who are willing to work in a country where there is a very
considerable proportion of uncultivated lands. Those lands are nn ;wtributed only for the sake of game. It should seem, then, that It must
be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors, which places them
above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these
lands to be labored.”
And If you 'will remember, gentlemen of the National Democratic
Club, you will recall that when this condition of monopoly reached a
certain point the finest qualities of monopolists were suddenly over
thrown and sent to the guillotine by the commonest kind of people in
one of the bloodiest revolutions known to history. The French revo
lution that overthrew this great monopoly had the good result of di
viding up the lands of France into small holdings, which has made
France one of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on earth, show
ing a power of recuperation after the Franco-Prusstan war that was
the astonishment of the world.
I think that, perhaps, few men realize the extreme danger created
by monopoly to the welfare and happiness of the people and to the
51007— 9315
7
stability of the country. The slavery of monopoly is not new in his
tory.
I recall a wonderful story of a monopoly recorded in Holy W rit that
was once established in the most fertile valley in the world, the valley
of the Nile.
It was in the reign of a king named Pharaoh. He had a commercial
adviser of great sagacity, a man sold as a slave into Egypt, named
Joseph, of Hebrew extraction.
Under the advice of Joseph, Pharaoh and his captains stored all of
the surplus corn of Egypt during the seven years of plenty, and there
after during the seven years of drouth they had one of the richest mo
nopolies known to history.
The price of corn “ went up.”
There was a “ bull movement ” on corn.
The bears were not “ in it.”
The price of corn went “ sky high.”
And, first of all, Pharaoh and his captains took all of the money of
the Egyptians in exchange for corn, and next they took all their jew
elry in exchange for corn, and then—
“ They brought their cattle unto Joseph ; and Joseph gave them bread
in exchange for horses and for the flocks and for the cattle of the
herds and for the asses, and he fed them with bread for all their cattle
for that year,” and the second year,
‘ ‘ Joseph bought all the land o f . Egypt for P h a r a o h ;” “ for the
Egyptians sold every man his field because the famine prevailed over
th e m ; so the land became Pharoah’s.”
And when the people had sold all of their property and land to Pha
raoh in exchange for corn, they said, “ Let us and our children work for
you for corn, and Pharaoh, being a benevolent man,” kindly permitted
them to do so.
And on these mild terms Pharaoh allowed them to have a portion of
the corn which they had raised with their own hands, because Pharaoh
was a benevolent man and had a sagacious adviser of fine commercial
instinct.
Then Joseph said unto the people, “ Behold, I have bought you this
day, and all your land, for P haraoh: lo, here is seed for you, and ye
shall sow the land.”
“ And it shall come to pass in the increase, that ye shall give the fifth
part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own, for seed of the field,
and for your food, and for them of your households, and for food for
your little ones.”
“ And they said, thou has saved our liv e s; ” and so it came to pass
that Pharoali was the savior of the country.
And Joseph and Pharaoh have not been the only, monopolists who
have been called by their captives “ the saviors of the country.”
I
well recall a recent scene in which certain great men of enormous busi
ness sagacity are reputed, during certain recent years of plenty, to have
laid up for use enormous values in cash and cash credits, and to have
stored or made subject to control nearly all of the available cash and
cash credits in New York— to have been piling it up for several years
on a bull market, and finally, when they had stored most of the
available cash in Egypt, there was a repetition of the days of Pharaoh—
and the famine came and the price of cash went up— there was a bull
movement on cash or a bear movement on stocks and bonds, and the
price of cash went sky high, and first of all Fharaoh and his captains
took over Morse and Ileintz and allied interests, and then they took
51007— 9315
8
over Tennessee Coal and Iron and other properties too nnmerous to
mention, and still the price of cash went up. On October 24, 1907,
the price of cash was out of sight, because there was a monopoly of
cash in Egypt, and the Egyptians in W all street cried aloud and lifted
up their voices and said, “ Wherefore shall we die before thine eyes?
Let us have corn.”
And at 2 o’clock Interest rates ran up to 150 per c e n t; Union Pacific
declined ten and a half points in ten sales, and at 2.15, when the Egyp
tians were on the point of falling dead, and were looking at each other
with ghastly faces, and considering the easiest way in which they might
commit suicide, lo, the ** saviors ” of America, Pharaoh and his captains,
“ let them have corn ” in exchange for their valued possessions.
“ And the Egyptians lifted up their voices,
“ And they s a id : ‘ Thou hast saved our lives.’ ”
In the leading Standard Oil bank there are 23 directors; in the
leading Morgan bank there are 39 directors; and they, with their sub
ordinates and associates, making a number something less than 100
men, have control of every railway company, telegraph company, express
company, steamship company, and all of the great industrials which
have a monopoly in every one of the great necessaries of life.
For those who are curious to see a more elaborate description of this
system and the companies they control, I commend them to the remarks
of Hon. R o b e r t M. L a F o l l e t t e , of W isconsin, in the United States
Senate during the last month.
These great combinations and trusts exercise a substantial monopoly
upon all of the great necessaries of life, and control their production,
transportation, and distribution.
In the last fifteen years these monopolies, commonly called trusts,
have been wonderfully developed in our country. John Moody, in his
revision of these statistics, bringing the figures down to January 1,
1908, presents the follow ing.
Table showing growth of trusts. 190i-190S.
Classification of trusts.
7 greater industrial trusts........
Lesser industrial tr u s t s .-------Important Industrial trustsin
reorganization----------------------
January 1, 1904.
January 1, 1908.
Number
Total capitali
of
plants zation, stocks
and bonds
acquired
or con outstanding.
trolled.
Number
of
Total capitali
plants zation, stocks
acquired
and bonds
or con outstanding.
trolled.
1,528
3,426
$2,662,752,100
4,065,039,433
1,638
5,038
$2,708,438,754
8,243,175,000
282
528,551,000
Total important indus
trial trusts____________
Franchise trusts______________
Great railroad groups-------------
5,288
1,336
1,010
7,246,342,533
3,735,456,071
9,397,363,907
6,676
2,599
745
10,951,613,754
7,789,393,OfjO
>12,931,154,000
All trusts________________
8,664
20,379,162,511
10,020
31,672,160,754
(«)
° The stock and bonds of. industrials for 1909 aggregate $17,529,126,232,
Poor’s Manual of Industrials, 1910.
6 Railroad stock and bonds and assets for 1908 aggregate $19,370,078,153, Poor’s Manual of Railroads, 1909.
51007— 9315
The Increase in these two items thus appears to be over $13,000,000,000, and the incomplete returns for trust properties for 1909 exceed
$45,000,000,000.
One trust which he does not mention is “ the money trust,” the
community of interests known as the system, by which the money and
bank credits of the country, which is the lifeblood of commerce, can be
controlled.
The laws have been so written as to pile up, in large measure, the
reserves of the banks of the country in three cities. And those who
can control the supply o f “ credits ” and of “ cash ” in the New York
banks can, of course, control the price of stocks and bonds, whose
market is fixed in New York, and there is grim humor in hearing the
Egyptians pay tribute to the masters o f monopoly and to see them fall
down and worship and to hear them declare, “ Thou hast saved oar
lives.”
It would make a man almost doubt whether such lives were
worth saving.
W ho is there so hall, so grossly Ignorant, as not to perceive that
monopoly means mastery on the one side and slavery on the other?
The slavery of monopoly is not confined to the Egyptians on W all
stre e t; it also goes to the Egyptians on the farm. Let me, as a farmer
and an humble Egyptian, give you a simple Illustration: From 1887
to 1894 I handled cattle. I had free ranges, cheap labor, and I worked
at this business industriously for seven years, and in that time sent
to market over 17,000 steers, and as a reward for my service in pre
paring food for the American people “ Pharaoh ” paid me not one dollar
in compensation above my actual expense. I earnestly thereafter ad
dressed my extremely limited intelligence to discovering the reason
why, and the reason was that when I took those cattle to the Kansas
City stock yards there was but one buyer— Pharaoh— who had a
monopoly on meat products, who had a monopoly by which he controlled
the price of cattle and hogs and sheep. He had various buyers in the
market, but only one price— the price was fixed every morning. W hat
chances has a farmer or a cattle producer against this evil combination
which fixes an arbitrary price upon his labor and upon everything
which goes into the c a ttle ; that is, upon his corn, his oats, his rye,
his millet, his wheat, his grass, and the labor of himself and of his
children? W hy, the farmer is only an Egyptian, and he, too, is allowed
to work for Pharaoh, because Pharaoh is a benevolent man.
The meat trust is more considerate in these days.
In the old days they killed the goose, of which I was one, that laid
the golden egg. In these days they are wiser, and they encourage the
goose to live by permitting him to have subsistence, while they content
themselves with plucking the goose o f all surplus and taking all the
eggs.
W e have not in our country a single Pharaoh, but we have a hundred
Pharaohs and 10,000 captains of Pharaoh, who have a monopoly upon
every line of commerce, upon every railway, every steamship line, upon
every means of transportation, of conveying intelligence, of production
and of distribution; upon every express company, upon every telegraph
line, upon all of the great industries. Monopolies In iron, and steel, and
copper, and tin, and zinc, and lead, and all m eta ls; monopolies in every
line of chem icals; monopolies in every line of d ru gs; monopolies in fer
tilizers ; monopolies in all building materials, cement, plaster, lumber,
stone, g la s s ; monopolies in house furnishings; monopolies in tobacco;
monopolies In oil and all its by-products; monopolies in asphalt and
s a l t ; monopolies in various food products, including coffee, and tea, and
sugar, and meats, and canned goods, and crackers, and bakery products.
51007— 9315
10
Monopolies in everything from the cradle of the child to the cerement
and casket of the grave.
Pharaoh has not been content with t monopoly of corn.
The Ethical Social League, at its conference on April 7, 1908. in
New York, pointed out some remarkable facts in relation to the smaller
purchasing power of the dollar paid in wages, and pointing out the
cumber of unemployed according to the statistics of Samuel S. Stodel,
as fo llo w s:
California-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Colorado-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Connecticut________________________________________________________
Illinois----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M assachusetts____________________________________________________
Missouri-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------M ontana-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Rhode Island______________________________________________________
New York State-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Pennsylvania_______________________________________________________
Ohio________________________________________________________________
Michigan___________________________________________________________
New Jersey---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Delaware___________________________________________________________
M ary lan d ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Virginia--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------W est Virginia---------------------------------------------------------------------------------North Carolina------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------Florida_____________________________________________________________
Oregon_______________________________________________________
W ashington-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Idaho_______________________________________________________________
Arizona------------------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------Nevada----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Nebraska--------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Dakotas--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Minnesota----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------W isconsin__________________________________________________________
Indiana---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Kentucky------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Tennessee------------------------------------------------ , --------------------- .-----------------Arkansas------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Louisiana-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------T exas------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Alabam a-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------South Carolina-------------------------------------------------------------------------------Georgia----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 5 , 000
40, 500
55, 000
300. 000
95, 000
85. 000
18, 000
30, 000
750, 000
350. 000
200. 000
135, 000
80, 000
30. 000
75. 000
42. 000
40. 000
36. 000
45. 000
5 1 .0 0 0
44. 000
26. 000
12. 0<H)
14. 000
10. 500
26. 000
43, 000
02 000
60. 000
30, 000
23, OO0
21. 000
47, 000
40. 000
39, 000
SO, 000
27, 000
T otal________________________________________________________ 3, 160. 000
But I call your attention to these things, and to an unorganized
mob of 10,000 unemployed recently reported to have assembled in this
city, and driven away by platoons of mounted police. They were sing
ing a significant song— “ La Marseillaise.”
I call your attention to the operations of the tobacco trust, and the
apparently unthinking, unreasonable, and almost unexplainable viola
tions of law by the “ night riders” of Kentucky and Tennessee.
Abraham Lincoln demanded, ns the voice of the American people,
that slavery of the unoffending blacks should not be extended to the
Territories of the United States, and later emancipated them all.
Thom as Jefferson protested against the slavery of man as an abstract
as well as a concrete proposition.
The old Democratic party was split asunder and driven from power
because a large part of that party was under the influence of those
who thought slavery justified.
The Republican party, which arose out of the loins of the Demo
cratic party, whose membership prior thereto had been Democrats,
51007— 9315
11
•whose adherents had been and still were the disciples of Je'fersnn, went
into power, and has retained power almost as long as the Democratic
party did prior to 1860.
The same evil which tore the Democratic party in twain in 1860 is
tearing the Republican party in twain in 1908.
By natural processes the political power of monopoly has become
enthroned in the United States under forty years of Republican admin
istration.
Both parties were agreed on the tariff in 1857. The ex
penses of war required a high tariff in 1861 for the raising of revenue,
and high tariff stimulated home manufactories : it enabled the American
manufacturers to make money easily by taxing the American consumer.
Immediately there arose a special class who profited by the privilege
of taxing their fellow-citizens under shelter of the tariff law which
cut off foreign competition.
When foreign competition had been extinguished and home compe
tition began to be engendered, the most natural thing in the world took
place. W ith the telegraph and telephone and lightning express trains
available, commercial competitors quickly assembled in peaceful con
ference, arranging various devices by which competition with each
other was extinguished and a monopoly in every line of commerce was
assured.
And now Pharaoh and his captains are in control, and millions of the
Egyptians are paying for the privilege of working for Pharaoh and his
captains, who are the “ saviors ” of mankind as the captains of mo
nopoly and employers of labor.
There are said to be over 6 ,000,000 women driven by economic need
out of the homes of America, outside of domestic service, compelled to
earn their daily bread in competition with the wages of m a n ; hun
dreds of thousands of young and tender children are being sacrificed
on the altars of Mammon under the grinding process of modern mo
nopoly and the exacting demands of corporation owners, who cry for
“ dividends, dividends, dividends,” on watered stock, of which only a
fractional part is honest capital entitled to interest.
The domestic and social relations of the sexes have been seriously
changed by these harsh conditions, and women have invaded every
avenue of labor.
The homes which women naturally love, for which they are nat
urally fitted, the homes where they should find their employment and
render the most valuable service to the Nation in being the mothers
of the Nation and in teaching to the children of the Nation the lessons
of religion, morality, industry, and frugality, have been impaired in
serious degree, the man and the woman and the child being obliged to
work long hours in order to retain for themselves enough for the neces
saries of life, after the stealthy hands of the captains of Pharaoh
have levied the artful tribute of monopoly upon every dollar received
for their wages.
Of course, Mr. President and gentlemen, I realize and thoroughly well
understand that many of the great beneficiaries of monopoly are, ia
fact, men of high benevolence and of sincere patriotism.
It is also true that some men, who are so religious that they will not
shave on Sunday, find no conscientious scruples against shaving other
men for the balance of the week ; but among the captains of Pharaoh
there are also many men of great intelligence, and of great benevo
lence, and of great patriotism, who do not realize the effect of monopoly
on the weaker laboring elements of the Nation. Their benevolence is shown
by such enormous contributions to education and to the public service
a
51007— 9315
12
such as the benefactions of John D. Rockefeller, of Andrew Carnegie,
and other very rich men. They are entiiled to personal credit for their
good works and to discredit for their bad works. Their good works,
however, show that the men who have conducted successful monopolies
under the shelter of law and in spite of law have the same generous
impulses which God has planted in the hearts of the great majority of
non.
It would, however, be asking too much of human nature to
expect those who have been or are successful in the manipulation of
business and in the establishment of monopoly, by which their ambi
tion for power and for property accumulation is gratified, to ask them
to contribute to the control of monopoly by law.
This duty is im
posed upon the patriotic sons of America of both parties— of both those
who have always adhered to the original Democratic party or to that
branch of the Democratic party that arose under the new name of
“ Republican party.”
It matters but little under what banner men may promote good gov
ernment, provided they stand for those principles which shall secure to
all an equal opportunity in life, an equal right to “ life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.”
It gives me the greatest pleasure to pay my homage to the patron
saint of the Democracy, because he stood firmly against the terrible
evils of slavery and of its twin brother— monopoly.
The people of Oklahoma have put on record their opposition to mo
nopoly in these w ords:
“ S ec . 32. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of
a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of
primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.”
And because primogeniture and entailments promote monopoly, Okla
homa has followed the teachings of Jefferson in forbidding primogeni
ture or entailment.
Thomas Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence, made the
declaration :
“ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
And section 2 in the bill of rights o f the Oklahoma constitution not
only declared that all persons have the right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness, but added the following words, “ and the enjoy
ment of the gains of their own industry.”
The Oklahoma constitution goes fu rth e r; it provides the means by
which monopoly shall be controlled, and the citizens of that State may
peacefully enjoy the gains of their own industry.
The first movement the people of my State adopted to protect them
selves against modern monopoly was to put into effect the “ initiative
and referendum,” by which the people of the State “ reserved to them
selves the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution
and to enact or reject the same ” at the polls independent of the legis
lature, and also reserved power at their own option to approve or
reject at the polls any act of the legislature. This power goes to every
county and district in the State, and every city of 2,000 or more people
may write their own charter of local self-government.
The constitution provides for a mandatory primary for the nomina
tion of all candidates for state, district, county, and municipal officers
for all political parties, including United States Senators.
In this way no machine politics will ever be engineered by the
monopolies in Oklahoma.
510 0 7 — 9315
13
The first net of the constitutional convention was to drive out of
town the lobbies of railroads and monopolies assembled for the purpose
of influencing the constitutional convention.
The constitution of Oklahoma did not content itself by merely de
claring that monopolies should not be allowed, but they provided for the
remedy of the evil by the completest publicity.
In the bill of rights will be found the follo w in g:
“ S ec . 28. The records, books, and files of all corporations shall be, at
all times, liable and subject to the full visitorial and inquisitorial
powers of the State.”
And because monopolies heretofore have hidden themselves behind the
constitutional provision, “ that no man shall be required to give evi
dence which might tend to incriminate him,” section 27 of the bill of
rights requires any person having knowledge of facts that tend to estab
lish the guilt of any other person or corporation charged with an
offense against the laws of the State shall not be excused from giving
testimony on the ground that it may tend to incriminate him, but no
person shall be prosecuted on account of any transaction, matter, or
thing concerning which he may give evidence.
The corporation commission of Oklahoma, under the constitution, is
given full power to compel publicity and to exercise control of corpo
rations doing business in that State, and are required to ascertain the
actual value of the capital invested in any such corporation as a basis
of determining their charges, if excessive, and have the right and duty
to determine the charges made by such corporations for any service
performed in the State.
It has been said that Thomas Jefferson believed with Jesus of Naza
reth in the doctrine of loving your neighbor as you love yourself, and
that he was the first statesman to write into a public document the
genuine teaching of Christ, and he wrote it in one word— “ Equality.”
The time lias come in the United States when this great doctrine
should be recognized in our statecraft. When the thousands of our
citizens who have distinguished themselves in commercial enterprises or
adventure shall realize the truth that their own happiness would be
better subserved if they would cease exploiting their power over their
neigiibors and brothers; If they would be content with a small interest
upon vast accumulations of the wealth produced by the labor of the
American people; if they would be content with the property which
they have heretofore, either justly or unjustly, taken from the pro
ducers of the Nation, and from this time forward consent that the
American producers shall be allowed, in the language of the Oklahoma
constitution, to have “ the enjoyment of the gains of their own in
dustry.”
It seems to me that it would be unwise to destroy the great corpora
tions which have been constructed in this country by our so-called
captains of industry.
I have read with great interest the address of George W . Perkins,
esq., on the “ Modern Corporations,” before the Columbia University,
of February 7, 1908.
lie argues in favor of organization, and denies
that these great organizations are due to the greed of man for wealth
and power.
He points out the injury of destructive competition, the
harm of commercial warfare, the economy and efficiency of the modem
corporation, its value in standardizing wares, its power to steady wages
and prices.
He argues that we should control the corporations; that the corpo
rations owe a duty to the general public, and best serve themselves and
51007— 9315
14
their stockholders by recognizing that duty and respecting i t ; that these
great corporations are, in fact, great trusteeships, and the larger the
number of stockholders the more it assumes the nature of an institu
tion of savings. He points out the great growth in the number of
stockholders in various railways and in United States Steel. And with
much of this argument I find myself strongly inclined to agree.
I wonder if Mr. Perkins will agree with me when I express the hope
that these great trusteeships of gigantic monopolies, when controlled
by the people of the United States, shall be content to be confined to a
reasonable interest upon the money actually invested?
W e have a perfect right to control these monopolies legally, morally,
and it is a patriotic duty to do so. And they should not be permitted
to tax the American people in excess of a fair interest on the capital
actually invested. If they were so controlled, it would give stability
to w ages; we would hear no more of overproduction nor of under
consumption, but these enterprises would proceed upon rational lines
and work for the welfare of all of the people of our common country.
It seems to me that such investments of capital which have estab
lished monopolies in interstate commerce should be limited to a maxi
mum earning of 10 per cent per annum on their actual investments,
and that they should be allowed to lay up as a trust fund abundant
surplus to provide against contingencies. They would then cease to
be private monopolies and would become public monopolies, retaining
all of their desirable features and having none of the injurious features
left. The owners of such monopolies, if patriotic, should be content
with this adjustment, which would be equitable and fair and just to
them and to the people of the United States.
The first step in the control of these corporations must necessarily
be complete publicity, requiring a sworn report of actual assets, based
upon a true valuation, with penalties of imprisonment for any false
affidavit, together with accurate and frequent reports of the actual earn
ings of such company and the disposition of such earnings. The excess
earnings over and above a rational return on these monopolies might
well go into the Treasury and be employed in improving our national
waterways and in building good roads.
THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE REVIVED DEMOCRACY.
W hile there are many thousands of patriotic Republican citizens who
earnestly desire the protection of our country from the corrupting po
litical influence and the insidious robbery by these great corporations,
it would be very unreasonable, if not impossible, to expect the Repub
lican party to give such relief to the country, for the obvious reason
that these selfish interests which have been built up behind a tariff wall
have entwined and intertwisted themselves into the machine politics of
the Republican party until they exercise a dominating influence and
control over the organization of that party.
The patriotic elements of the Republican party are too disorganized
to bring up to their own standards of good citizenship the selfish in
terests in that party. Theodore Roosevelt has made many excellent
recommendations, which have either been Ignored or so indifferently
complied with that during the seven years of his service instead of these
monopolies being abated and controlled they have increased beyond any
thing known in human history.
The disinterested, unselfish Republicans should be Invited and en
couraged by the revived Democracy to rally around the flag of Jefferson
and join the Democracy in restoring the Government to the highest
Ideals, from which we have in receut decades departed.
51007— 9313
The people of the new State of Oklahoma have laid down the prin
ciples of good government in their constitution, which are drawn from
teachings of Jefferson, and which should be a beacon light to guide all
the patriotic sons of America, of all parties, back to the days of good
government and of sound national health, in which our people shall
have peace and happiness, in which women and children shall be per
mitted to return to their homes and be withdrawn from commercial
slavery, when men shall be permitted to enjoy the fruits of their own
industry, and when capital shall he content with a reasonable interest
upon an actual investment, and when every rich man shall find his hap
piness in promoting the brotherhood of man and not in stealing from
his fellow-men, by craft or force, the proceeds of their labor merely to
pile it up as a monument to their own ambition and folly.
When the principles of Thomas Jefferson, which have been wonder
fully worked out and developed in the constitution of Oklahoma, shall
have been established throughout the Union, we will see an end to
harmful monopolies in our country and a wonderful intellectual and
spiritual development of the American people, as well as a commercial
development for which the past holds no parallel. When these prin
ciples of good government shall have been established men will more
and more pay tribute to the man who pointed the way and will celebrate
with greater and greater honor the 13th of April, the birthday of the
Immortal Jefferson, the patron saint of the Democracy.
51007— 9315
SALE OF THE MINERAL DEPOSITS OF
THE CHOCTAW AND CHICKASAW COAL
AND ASPHALT LANDS IN OKLAHOMA
“ I count myself as one of the custodians of the good name of the
Nation.
Every Senator on this floor is charged with the personal re
sponsibility of keeping the plighted faith of this Government, and no
argument based upon material advantage will avail to justify any policy
which will give ground to the Choctaws and Chickasaws to feel that the
United States has been guilty of perfidy and dishonor. These Choctaws
and Chickasaws are my constituents. They are citizens of the United
States and of Oklahoma. They are my friends, and I represent them on
this floor as Senator from the State of Oklahoma, and I serve notice on
the Senate that patience has ceased to be a virtue.”
SPEECH
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K LA H O M A
IN THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S
APRIL 15, 1912
W A SH IN G T O N
1912
400S3— 1090G
SPE ECH
OF
I I ON.
ROBERT
L.
OWEN.
The Senate having under consideration the hill (S. 5727) to provide
for the appraisement of the mineral deposits of the segregated coal and
asphalt lands of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, and for other pur
poses—
Mr. OWEN said:
Mr. P r e s i d e n t : I rise to request and to demand that the
United States fulfill its treaty obligations to the Choctaw and
Chickasaws by the immediate sale of the coal and asphalt de
posits, as the United States is pledged to do by treaty.
Nineteen years ago the Dawes Commission was instructed to
negotiate with the Choctaws and Chickasaws for the allotment
of their lands, the giving up of their tribal governments, and
the creation o f State government (27 Stats., 645, sec. 16). The
Dawes Commission was expressly authorized in this act—
To procure the cession, for such price and upon such terms as shall
be agreed upon, of any lands not found necessary to be so allotted or
divided, to the United States.
The Choctaws and Chickasaws were very reluctant to give
up their method of landholding, and to give up their tribal gov
ernments, to which they were deeply attached. The holding of
land in common was almost a religion with the Indian people.
But after four years of solicitation and urging the Choctaws and
Chickasaws, who had always been extremely friendly to the
United States and loyal to the wishes of the Government, agreed
to give up their tribal governments by an agreement of April
23, 1897 (U. S., 30 Stats., 495, sec. 29).
By this agreement the Choctaws and Chickasaws agreed to
relinquish their tribal government; that their lands should be
allotted; and the United States agreed on its part to fairly
divide the proi>erty owned by them in common at the expense
o f the United States.
This agreement was amended by a supplemental agreement
approved by Congress July 1, 1902 (32 Stats., 641).
By section 14 it was agreed that the residue of lands not
reserved or otherwise disposed of should be sold at public
auction under the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secre
tary of the Interior and the proceeds distributed per capita.
And it was further expressly provided as follows:
S ec. 50. A t the. expiration of two years after the final ratification of
this agreement all deposits of coal and asphalt which are in the lands
within the limits of any town site established under the Atoka agree
ment, or the act of Congress of May 01, 1900, or this agreement, and
which arc within the exterior limits of any lands reserved from allot
ment on account of their coal or asphalt deposits, as herein provided,
and which are not at the time of the final ratification o f this agree
ment embraced in any then existing coal or asphalt lease, shall be sold
at public auction for cash under the direction of the President as here
inafter provided, and the proceeds thereof disposed of as herein pro
vided respecting the proceeds of the sale of coal and asphalt lands.
S ec. 57. All coal and asphalt deposits which are within the limits of
any town site so established, which are at the date of the final ratifi
cation of this agreement covered by any existing lease, shall, at the
expiration o f two years after the final ratification of this agreement, be
400 8 3 — 10900
3
sold at public auction under the direction of the President as herein
after provided, and the proceeds thereof disposed of as provided in the
last preceding section. The coal or asphalt covered by each lease shall
be separately sold.
The purchaser shall take such coal or asphalt
deposits subject to the existing lease, and shall by the purchase succeed
to all the rights of the two tribes of every kind and character under
the lease, but all advanced royalties received by the tribe shall be
retained by them.
S e c . 58. W ithin six months after the final ratification of this agree
ment the Secretary of the Interior shall ascertain, so far as may be
practicable, what lands are principally valuable because of their de
posits of coal or asphalt, including therein all lands which at the time
of the final ratification of this agreement shall be covered by then
existing coal or asphalt leases, and within that time he shall, by
written order, segregate and reserve from allotment all of said lands.
Such segregation and reservation shall conform to the subdivision of
the Government survey as nearly as may be, and the total segregation
and reservation shall not exceed 500,000 acres.
Mr. President, it has been 10 years since this solemn promise
was made to the Choctaws and Chickasaws.
They have demanded from time to time the fulfillment of
this guaranty by the United States, and. as Senator from Okla
homa, I have strenuously and persistently urged the sale of
these coal and asphalt lands and deposits.
The Department of the Interior, which was charged with
carrying out the plighted honor of the United States, now finds
shelter for not carrying out this law under the act approved
April 26, 1906, section 13, which was passed at the instance
and with the approval of the department itself, as follows, to
w it:
That all coal and asphalt lands, whether leased or unleased, shall
he reserved from sale under this act until the existing leases for coal
and asphalt lands shall have expired or until such time as may be
otherwise provided by law.
These lands amount to approximately 445,000 acres:
Acres.
Coal land, Choctaw Nation_________________________________________ 4 3 8 , 000
Asphalt land, Choctaw Nation_____________________________________
1 , 000
6, 000
Asphalt land, Chickasaw Nation___________________________________
Congress has just passed an act providing for the sale of
the surface of the segregated coal and asphalt lands, but no
action was taken by Congress to sell the mineral deposits of
the coal and asphalt.
The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. L a F ollette ], I am ad
vised, desires that the United States should buy this coal and
asphalt belonging to the Choctaws and Chickasaws, with a view
to the conservation o f these properties and the administration
of these coal fields by the Government of the United States,
and he has heretofore been unwilling to carry out the pledge
of the United States to sell these properties and distribute the
moneys to the Choctaws and Chickasaws, because he hoped
that the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United
States would agree to buy this property and handle it under
the governmental administration.
Mr. President, I believe in the conservation of coal and
asphalt, but I believe that this is a problem which primarily
involves the conservation of the national honor. The preserva
tion of the national integrity is more important than the Federal
purchase or control of coal owned by private persons. The
United States Government gave its pledge and its guaranty 10
years ago to nearly 30,000 human beings—the Choctaws and
Chickasaws—that if they would do certain things and give up
certain things, to which they were deeply attached, the United
40083— 10906
V
States would sell this coal and asphalt and distribute the money
to these people.
The Choctaws and Chickasaws have been waiting 15 years
for the fulfillment of this pledge. Nearly 5,000 of these people
have died disappointed and have been denied the written pledge
of this Government. Justice delayed is justice denied.
I count myself as one of the custodians o f the good name of
the Nation. Every Senator on this floor is charged with the
personal responsibility of keeping the plighted faith of this
Government, and no argument based upon material advantage
will avail to justify any policy which will give ground to the
Choctaws and Chickasaws to feel that the United States has
been guilty of perfidy and dishonor. These Choctaws and Chick
asaws are my constituents. They are citizens of the United
States and of the State of Oklahoma. They are my friends,
and I represent them on this floor as Senator from the State
of Oklahoma, and I serve notice on the Senate that patience
has ceased to be a virtue.
I demand a fulfillment of the written pledge of this Govern
ment to the Choctaws and Chickasaws in good faith.
Nobody believes that the Government will buy this property,
and nobody believes that the Government will permit this prop
erty to pass into the hands of any great monopoly. The abuse
of monopoly can be prevented by selling it in tracts of reason
able size, and the laws of Oklahoma will do the rest.
If the Government is not going to buy this coal and asphalt,
then let the Government immediately sell this land to the high
est bidder and fulfill faithfully and honestly the plighted faith
of this Nation.
I submit a memorandum prepared by the Department of
the Interior in relation to the Choctaw and Chickasaw coal and
asphalt lands:
M EMORANDUM PREPARED BY T H E DEPARTMENT OF TH E INTERIOR IN
RELATION TO T H E CHOCTAW AND C H IC K A S A W COAL AND ASPH ALT
LANDS.
“ Additional legislation is required before the coal lands in the
Choctaw Nation can be disposed of (all o f the coal lands are
within the Choctaw Nation). The last act of Congress on the
subject was passed April 26, 1900 (54 Stat., 157), and provides
as follows:
“ That all coal and asphalt lands, whether leased or nnleased, shall
be reserved from sale under this act until the existing leases for coal
and asphalt lands shall hare expired or until sucn time as may be
otherwise provided by law.
“ The last agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaws. em
braced in the act of Congress approved July 1. 1902 (32 Stat,
041), provided that the coal and asphalt lands in the Choctaw
and Chickasaw Nations be segregated. This segregation took
place March 24, 1905, and embraced an area of approximately
445,000 acres. This area is divided up substantially as follows:
A cres.
Coal land. Choctaw Nation, approximately_______________________ 438. 000
Asphaltum land, Choctaw Nation, approxim ately-----------------------1 ,0 0 0
Asphaltum land, Chickasaw Nation, approxim ately-------------------X>. 000
T otal___________________________________________________________
4 4 5 ,0 0 0
“ Of this area about 100,(XK) acres were covered by live coal
leases in effect July 30, 1909, and the 6,000 acres of Chickasaw
asphaltum lands were also covered by leases at the same time.
40083— 10906
The coal and asjdialtum leases were made for a period o f 30
years from their respective dates. The dates of these leases
range from July 3, 1899, to September 16, 1902, and therefore
they will expire by their own momentum from July 3. 1929, to
September 16, 1932. Said act of July 1, 1902 ( 32 Stat., 641),
which provided that no more mining leases should thereafter
be made was not ratified by the Indians until September 25,
1902, and was not operative until ratified by the Indians. This
accounts for the fact that some leases bear dates as late as
September 16, 1902.
“ Said act also provided that the segregated coal and asphaltum land should be sold within three years from its date at
public auction for cash, under the direction o f the President,
by a commission composed o f three persons to be appointed by
the President. This commission was appointed, but no lands
were disposed o f by i t Pending action of said commission,
Congress made a provision in the Indian appropriation act of
April 21, 1904 (33 Stat., 189), whereby the method of sale of
the coal lands was changed from sales at public auction to sales
under sealed bids. Much o f the coal land was advertised for
sale in 1904 under sealed bids. These sealed bids were opened
at the department, but were rejected because the Secretary de
cided that the price offered for the coal lands was inadequate.
The bids on 362 tracts, aggregating 60,946 acres (no tract ex
ceeding 960 acres), aggregated $498,562. an average of $8.18
per acre. Such bids included not only the land itself but the
mineral therein.
“ Nothing has been done since 1904 looking toward the sale
of the coal lands, indeed nothing can be done without new
legislation, as will be seen from the act of April 26, 1906 ( 34
Stat., 137), quoted above.
“ There was a wide divergence o f opinion on the value of
these coal lands. On account of this, Congress on June 21,
1906 ( 34 Stat., 325), appropriated $50,000 for the purpose of
prospecting the coal lands and drilling holes at different points
to ascertain the value of the coal deposits therein contained.
This $50,000 was expended by the Commissioner to the Five
Civilized Tribes under the personal and direct supervision of
Mining Agent William Cameron.
Mr. Cameron personally
conducted the prospecting, drilling, and examination of the
field. His prospecting has been of great value to the Govern
ment, and the $50,000 appropriated was well expended. Mr.
Cameron was assisted in his work by a representative of the
Geological Survey detailed by the department. The man from
the Geological Survey, who has had this matter under his per
sonal supervision, is Mr. A. W. Thompson; he, however, is not
now in the Government service.
“ Senate Document No. 390, Sixty-first Congress, second ses
sion, gives a full and complete report of the prospecting done in
the coal areas. This report, which is evidently a reliable docu
ment, shows among other things the following, to w it:
“ Mr. Cameron considers the present value of the workable
coal, separate from the surface, at $12,319,000 (p. 21). Mr.
CanJeron confines his calculation to coal veins lying 1,000 feet
or less in depth from the surface (p. 90), and in the main con
fines his estimates to coal layers 3 feet in thickness or more
(p. 90). He thinks that the segregated coal area contains
283,649 acres of good workable coal (p. 21). Ho estimates the
400 8 3 — 10900
T
total value of the coal at $12,319,000, as stated above, or at
about $44 per acre (p. 71), and thinks that the rest o f the
segregated area, containing approximately 155,000 acres, is
either barren of coal or that the coal lies too deep for any com
mercial value.
“ The Geological Survey, to which Mr. Cameron's report was
submitted, using the same basis as that adopted by Mr. Cam
eron, to wit, coal lying in measures 1,000 feet and less in depth
and having a thickness of 3 feet or more, estimates that the
workable coal covers an area of 217,382 acres (p. 90). More
over, the Geological Survey has used another basis of calcu
lation upon which it places the coal area at 371,6S9 acres, using
coal measures at a depth of 3,000 feet or less and veins of a
thickness as small as 14 inches.
“ I especially invite your attention to the four assumptions
made by the Geological Survey in valuing the coal deposits
exclusive of the surface. I quote their exact language, found
on page 90 of Senate Document No. 390:
“ In valuing these coal lands, four assumptions may be m ad e:
“ (1 ) That the coal be retained by the Indians and sold under lease
hold contracts, as at present. A t the present royalty rate this would
yield a total return of approximately $ 1 6 0,000,000.' less the cost of
inspection and administration, and at the present rate of mining this
return would be recovered in 666 years.
“ (2 ) That they be retained by the Indians until sold by tracts or
otherwise on demand for immediate exploitation.
On this basis the
value has been assumed to be the same that it would be if these were
Government lands and being held by the Government, and the value
calculated in the same way as the value of the Government lands.
This gives a total value of $26,026,920.
“ (3 ) That they be thrown onto the market by tracts and bring what
they will. Their value can not be estimated in this case, but undoubt
edly it would average very low.
“ (4 ) That they be sold in a single piece to the State or National Gov
ernment. If the National Government can obtain money at 3 per cent
they are worth to it from $5,000,000 to $6,600,000. If the State govern
ment can obtain money at 5 per cent they are worth to it $4,000,000 or
less. They are worth to either the State or National Government such
a sum as the estimated income will pay interest upon and create a sink
ing fund that will ultimately recoup the investment.
Since 1902 the
annual production of coal in the Choctaw Nation has been about
3,000,000 tons. At 8 cents a ton this yields approximately $240,000 a
year. Two hundred thousand dollars may be taken as a safe net roy
alty income, leaving $40,000 to meet the expense of inspection, adminis
tration, and contingencies.
“ The leases above referred to have yielded, since the Govern
ment took charge, a royalty of 8 cents per ton, mine run, and
have produced the following tonnage and royalty:
Y e a r e n d in g J u n e 3 0 —
1899 ........................................................................................................
1 9 0 0 ............................................................................................................
1 9 0 1 .............................................................................................................
O u tp u t.
R o y a lt y .
Tons.
1 ,4 0 4 ,4 4 2
1 .9 0 0 ,1 2 7
2 ,3 9 8 ,1 5 6
2 ,7 3 5 .3 6 5
3 .1 8 7 .0 3 5
3 ,1 9 8 .8 6 2
2 ,8 5 9 .5 1 6
2 ,7 2 2 .2 9 0
3 ,0 7 9 .7 3 3
2 ,7 8 0 .6 4 9
2 ,7 2 8 .4 3 7
$ 1 1 0 ,1 4 5 .2 5
1 3 8 ,4 8 6 .4 0
1 9 9 .6 6 3 .5 5
2 4 7 , 3 6 1 .3 6
2 6 1 , 9 2 9 .8 4
2 7 7 , 8 1 1 .6 0
2 4 8 . 4 2 8 .3 6
2 5 1 , 9 4 7 .0 2
2 4 0 ,1 9 9 .2 3
2 7 3 ,1 9 6 .8 2
2 1 8 ,3 7 6 .0 7
“ It is to be remarked that the most desirable coal measures
within this segregated area are under lease.”
40083— 10906
o
CLOTURE IN THE SENATE
“ The minority veto in the Senate, with its power to prevent the
m ajority from fulfilling its pledges to the American people, should end.
The right to obstruct the public business by a factional filibuster must
cease. The power of an individual Senator to coerce or blackmail the
Senate must be terminated. These national evils can no longer be con
cealed by the false cloak of ‘ freedom of debate.’ ”
SPEECH
OP
IION. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K LAH O M A
IN THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STA TE S
JULY 14, 1913
W A SH IN G T O N
1013
21124— 125SG
S P E E C H
OP
I I ON.
ROBERT
L.
OWEN.
AM E N D M EN T OF TH E BULES.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I offer the following resolution
for reference to the Committee on Rules:
Resolved, That Rule X I X of the standing rules o f the Senate be
amended by adding the follow ing:
“ S e c . 6 . That the Senate may at any time, upon motion of a Sena
tor, fix a day and hour for a final vote upon any matter pending in the
S en ate: Provided, however, That this rule shall not be invoked to pre
vent debate by any Senator who requests opportunity to express his
views upon such pending matter within a time to be fixed by the
Senate.
“ The notice to be given by the Senate under this section, except by
consent, shall not be less than a week, unless such requests be made
within the last two weeks of the session.”
For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namely, Y II,
V II I, IX , X , X I I , X X I I , X X V I , and X L , are modified:
“ Any Senator may demand of a Senator making a motion if it be
made for dilatory or obstructive purposes, and if the Senator making
the motion declines or evades an answer or concedes the motion to
have been made for such purposes, the President of the Senate shall
declare such motion out of order.”
Mr. President, llie minority veto in the Senate, with its power
to prevent the majority from fulfilling its pledges to the Ameri
can people, should end. The right to obstruct the public business
by a factional filibuster must cease. The power of an individual
►Senator to coerce or blackmail the Senate must be terminated.
These national evils can no longer be concealed by the false
cloak of “ freedom o f debate.”
Those who defend the antiquated rule o f unlimited parlia
mentary debate do so chiefly on the ground of precedent. The
precedents of the intellectual world, of the parliamentary world,
are entirely against the preposterous rule which has been per
mitted to survive in the United States Senate alone. What are
the precedents o f other parliamentary bodies?
PRECEDENTS.
The precedents in the State o f Maine and in every New Eng
land State, in every Atlantic State, in Gulf State, in every
Pacific State, in every Rocky Mountain State, in every Missis
sippi Valley State, and in every State bordering on Canada are
against unlimited debate or the minority veto. In both the sen
ate and house of every State the precedent is to the contrary.
The precedent is against it in New Hampshire.
The precedent is against it in Vermont.
The precedent is against it in Massachusetts.
The precedent is against it in Rhode Island and Connecticut.
What Senator from the New England States will venture to
say that the precedents of every single one of the New England
States are unsound, unwise, and ought to be modified to conform
to the superior wisdom of the Senate rule?
21124— 12580
3
t
;
4
■
The precedent is against it in New York, and in Pennsyl
vania, and in New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and
West Virginia. What Senator upon this floor representing these
Commonwealths will venture to say that the people of his Stale
have adopted a false standard of parliamentary practice which
they ought to abandon for the superior virtue o f the minority
veto established in the Senate by an archaic rule of 1806?
The precedent in North Carolina, in South Carolina, in
Georgia, in Alabama, in Mississippi, and Tennessee is against it.
Will the Senators from these States say that the parliamentary
rule and practice of their own States, which they have the
honor to represent upon this floor, are unwise and not safe and
should be modified to comply with the superior rule of the
minority veto?
The precedents o f Louisiana, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, and
Kentucky, of Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Montana, o f the
Dakotas, o f Nebraska, and Kansas, are all against this unwise
practice of the United States Senate.
The precedents of Colorado, Wyoming, and Minnesota, of
Idaho, of Nevada, o f Arizona and New Mexico, and of the great
Pacific States—Washington, Oregon, and California—provide for
the closing of debate and are against the evil practice which
still remains in vogue in the United States Senate.
Why, Mr. President, the precedent of every city, big and
little, in the United States is against the right of minority veto
under the false pretense of “ freedom of debate.”
Every one of the 48 States o f the Union, while permitting
freedom o f debate, has set us the wise and virtuous precedent
of permitting the control by the majority. I remind every Sena
tor in this body that in his own State his legislative assembly,
whether in the house or in the senate, does not permit a minor
ity veto under the pretense of freedom of debate. It is the
rule o f common sense and o f common honesty.
In the House of Representatives o f the Congress o f the United
States the right to move the previous question and limit debate
has bean wisely and profitably practiced since its foundation.
E N G L IS H tr.E C E D E X T S .
The rule of the majority is the rule in all the parliaments of
English-speaking people. In the Parliament of Great Britain,
in the House of Lords, the “ contents ” pass to the right and
the “ not contents ” pass to the left, and the majority rules.
In the House of Commons the “ ayes ” pass to the right and
the “ noes” pass to the left, and the majority rules. (Encyclopiedia Britannica, vol. 20, p. 856.)
The great English statesman, Mr. Gladstone, having found
that the efliciency of Parliament was destroyed by the right
of unlimited debate, was led to propose cloture in the first
week o f the session of 1882, moving this resolution on the 20th
of February, and expressing the opinion that the House should
settle its own procedure. The acts of Mr. Gladstone and others
of like opinion finally led to the termination o f unlimited de
bate in the procedure of Parliament. In these debates every
fallacious argument now advanced by those who wish to retain
unlimited debate in the United States Senate has been abun
dantly answered, leaving no ground of sound reasoning to recon
sider these stale and exploded arguments.
21124— 12586
5
The cloture of debate is very commonly used in the Houses
of Parliament in Great Britain, for example, in standing order
TsTo. 26. The return to order of the House of Commons, dated
December 12, 1906, shows that the cloture was moved 112 times.
(See vol. 94, Great Britain House of Commons, sessional papers,
1906.)
FRANCE.
In France the cloture is moved by one or more members cry
ing out “ La cloture ! ”
The president immediately puts the question, and if a member of the
minority wishes to speak he is allowed to assign his reasons against
the close of the debate, hut no one can speak in support of the motion
and only one member against it.
The question is then put by the
president, “ Shall the debate be c lo se d ?” and if it is resolved in the
affirmative the debate is closed and the main question is put to the
vote.
M. Guizot, speaking on the efficacy o f the cloture before a
committee of the House of Commons in 184S, said:
I think that in our chamber it was an indispensable power, and I
think it has not been used unjustly or improperly generally. Calling
to mind what has passed of late years, I do not recollect any serious
and honest complaint of the cloture. In the French Chambers, as they
have been during the last 34 years, no member can imagine that the
debate would have been properly conducted without the power of pro
nouncing the cloture.
He also stated in another part of his evidence that—
Before the introduction of the cloture in 1814 the debates were pro
tracted indelinitoly, and not only were they protracted, but at the end,
when the majority wished to put an end to the debate and the minority
would not, the debate became very violent for protracting the debate,
and out of the house among the public is was a source of ridicule.
The French also allow the previous question, and it can al
ways be moved; it can not he proposed on motions for which
urgency is claimed, except after the report of the committee of
initiative. (Dickinson's ltules and Procedure o f Foreign Par
liaments, p. 426.)
GERMANY.
The majority rule controls likewise in the German Empire
and they have the cloture upon the support of 30 members of
the house, which is immediately voted on at any time by a
show of hands or by the ayes and noes.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
In Austria-Hungary motions for the closing of the debate
are to be put to the vote at once by the president without any
question, and thereupon the matter is determined. If the ma
jority decides for a close of the debate, the members whose
names are put down to speak for or against the motions may
choose from amongst them one speaker on each side, and the
matter is disposed of by voting a simple yes or no. (Ibid., p.
404.)
AUSTRIA.
Austria also, in its independent houses of Parliament, has the
cloture, which may be put to the vote at any time in both
houses, and a small majority suffices to carry it. This is done,
however, without interrupting any speech iu actual course of
delivery; and when the vote to close the debate is passed each
side has one member represented in a final speech on the ques
tion. (Ibid., p. 409.)
21124— 1258G
\\
6
B E L G IU M .
In Belgium they have the cloture, and if the prime minister
and president of the Chamber are satisfied that there is need of
closing the debate a hint is given to some member to raise the
cry of “ La cloture,” after a member o f the opposition has con
cluded his speech, and upon the demand of 10 members, grant
ing permission, however, to speak for or against the motion
under restrictions. The method here does not prevent any rea
sonable debate, but permits a termination of the debate by the
will of the majority. The same rule is followed in the Senate
o f Belgium. (Dickinson’s Rules and Procedure of Foreign Par
liaments, p. 420.)
DENMARK.
In Denmark also they have the cloture, which can be pro
posed by the president of the Danish chambers, which is decided
by the chamber without debate. Fifteen members of the Landsthing may demand the cloture. (Ibid., p. 422.)
NETHERLANDS.
In both houses of the Parliament of Netherlands they have
the cloture. Five members of the First Chamber may propose
it and five members may propose it in the Second Chamber.
They have the majority rule. (Ibid., p. 461.)
PORTU GAL.
In Portugal they have the cloture in both chambers, and de
bate may be closed by a special motion, without discretion. In
the upper house they permit two to speak in favor of and two
against it. The cloture may be voted. (Ibid., p. 469.)
SPAIN.
The cloture in Spain may be said to exist indirectly, and to
result from the action allowed the president on the order of
parliamentary discussion. (Ibid., p. 477.)
SWITZERLAND.
The cloture exists in Switzerland both in the Conseil des
Etats and Conseil National.
Many of the ablest and best Senators who have ever been
members of this body have urged the abatement o f this evil,
including such men as Senator George G. Vest, of Missouri;
Senator Orville H. Platt, of Connecticut; Senator David B.
Hill, of New York; Senator George F. Hoar, o f Massachusetts;
and Senator H e n r y C abot L odge, o f Massachusetts, who in
troduced resolutions or spoke for the amendment of this evil
practice of the Senate. (Appendix, Note A.)
Mr. President, the time has come in the history of the United
States when Congress shall be directly responsive to the will
of the majority of 90,000,000 o f people without delay, evasion,
or obstruction. We are in the midst of the most gigantic cen
tury in the history of the world, when every reason looking to
the welfare and advance of the human race bids us march for
ward in compliance with the magnificent intelligence and
humane impulses of the American people.
We have the most important problems before us—financial,
commercial, sociological. Fifteen great propositions of improve
ment of government were pledged by the recent Democratic
platform, and almost a like number were pledged by other
party platforms. We have work to do that means the preserva
tion, the conservation, and the development of human life of
21124— 1258G
1
7
human energy, of human health. We have before us the great
problems which mean the development o f this vast country,
and we should have the machinery of government by which to
respond with reasonable promptitude to mature public opinion,
but the rules of the Senate have been such as to prevent action;
the rules o f the Senate are such as to prevent action now with
regard to the great questions before the country. The rules of
the Senate have put the power in the hands o f a small faction
or of a single individual to obstruct, without reason, and to pre
vent action by Congress. I favor the right o f the majority of
the Senate to control the Senate after giving every reasonable
freedom of debate to the opposition, so that the people of the
country may have both sides o f every proposition. But I am
strongly opposed to the minority veto, or to a single Senator
obstructing and preventing the control of the Senate by the
responsible majority.
In a short session of Congress the Senate will appropriate a
thousand million dollars in less than 350 working hours. Each
working hour means the appropriation of $3,000,000 of the hardearned taxes taken from the labor o f the American people.
Every two minutes the Senate averages an appropriation of
$100,000 of taxes, and yet, instead of addressing itself to a
comprehension of the necessity for such taxes, for such expendi
ture, a single Senator, or a small faction or a minority, may
detain the Senate for hours and for days and for weeks while
great questions of public policy wait, leaving the Senate to be
thus distracted by filibustering tactics, discussions of immate
rial or trivial matters, reading o f worthless papers and statis
tics—in a deliberate obstruction of the majority by the minority.
EX TR E M E
D IF F IC U L T Y IN O B T A IN IN G L E G ISL A T IO N T H A T IS
OF V AL U E, EVEN W IT H O U T A F IL IB U S T E R .
C O N FESSE D LY
Mr. President, before a bill can be passed that is desired by
the American people, no matter how worthy, it must first be
carefully drawn, submitted to the House of Representatives,
and by the House submitted to a committee, and almost inva
riably such a bill is sent from the committee o f the House to
the executive department for a report; and when the report
comes in it is considered in the committee, and finally and
usually, where the majority desires the bill passed, it will be
reported back to the House—abundant opportunity having been
thus given to discover its weak points or defects.
When it goes to the House it takes its place upon the calen
dar and awaits the time with patience when it can be taken up
on the calendar.
It must be read three times in the House, it must be printed,
it is discussed in the House, and, finally, if after having passed
every criticism and scrutiny it be approved by the majority of
the House, it is signed by the Speaker and finds its way to the
United States Senate. When it reaches the Senate it is again
sent to a committee, the committee further considers it, and,
finally, if a majority favor, it is reported back to the Senate
to take its place upon the calendar. And many a good bill has
died on the calendar in the Senate because of a single objection
to it—what might be called the private right o f veto by an
individual Senator. If at last it is permitted, by consent, to
come before the Senate and does not excite any prolonged de2 1 1 2 4 — 1 2 580
bate, it may become a law by reason of a majority vote of those
present. But if anywhere along the line of this slow, deliberate
procedure any serious objection is raised by a minority or by
a Senator either can by dilatory motions, by insisting upon
hearings, by making the point of “ no quorum,” by using a
Senator’s right to object and demand the regular order, by
using his position to ask reconsideration and a rehearing, or,
perhaps, an additional report from the executive department,
and then demanding hearings in the executive department while
the report is delayed, and in a thousand other ingenious ways a
single Senator, much less a faction or willful minority, can
make it almost impossible to pass a bill o f great merit. For
three years I have been trying to pass a bill to establish an
improved organization of the Bureau of Public Health and have
been unable to get any action for or against by Congress.
I only refer to this as an example of many meritorious meas
ures which have never been acted upon, and for which there is
a powerful matured public sentiment urgently insisting upon
action.
The Senate of the United States has rules for its conduct that
make it almost impossible to get a bill through, except by unani
mous consent, where a resolute minority is opposed to the pas
sage o f the bill. Under the so-called privilege o f “ freedom of
debate ” a group o f Senators can hold up any measure indefi
nitely by endless talk in relays and by the use of dilatory mo
tions, making the point of “ no quorum,” moving to “ adjourn,”
moving to “ take a recess,” moving to “ adjourn to a day cer
tain,” reading for an hour or so from Martin Chuzzlewit or
Pickwick Papers, making the point o f “ no quorum,” moving to
“ adjourn,” making the point of “ no quorum,” moving to “ ad
journ to a day certain,” moving to “ take a recess,” moving to
go into “ executive session,” and, under the rules, may read a
few chapters of Huckleberry Finn—and this puerile conduct is
dignified by the false pretense o f being “ freedom of debate,”
when, in point of fact, it is nothing of the kind. It is the
minority obstruction and the personal veto under the pretense
of freedom of debate, under the false pretense of freedom of
debate, under the contemptible and odious pretense of freedom
of debate.
It is not freedom of debate.
The country has been very greatly harmed under the pres
ent rules, as I shall show before this debate concludes. At
present I am simply laying a preamble for the consideration
o f this matter. It is going to take much time. It is going
to be debated at considerable length in this body. It is going
before the country for the country to determine whether
or not men shall be permitted by the people of the United States
to stand upon the floor of the Senate and favor the control of
the majority by the minority and favor a policy of making it im
possible for party pledges to be carried out in this Republic.
I will not say there is not the possibility, under some circum
stances, of some good ensuing from a vigorous protest by the
minority. I am perfectly willing to agree to that. But yielding
that point in no way aflfec-ts the validity of the argument that
the majority should be charged with the responsibility o f gov21124— 12580
9
ernment; and I in no wise modify the comment I have made
upon the odious pretense o f “ freedom of debate ” in this body,
which has served as a cloak for a minority veto and for im
proper processes in this body. I say it is not freedom of debate.
The minority veto is, in effect, a denial o f freedom of debate.
A man in charge of an important bill is driven to refrain from
debating the bill because he would be playing into the hands of
the opponents of the bill, who are trying to kill the bill by
exhausting the patience of the Senate by endless volubility and
unending dilatory motions.
This thoughtless rule of unlimited freedom of debate was
adopted in 180G, when there were 34 Senators, who met together
to discuss their common affairs in courtesy and good faith, when
only a very few bills were brought before the Senate. They had
no conception that unlimited freedom of debate really meant a
minority veto. Now that the Senate has 9G Members, repre
senting 90,000,000 people, when its interests are of the most
gigantic importance, when its modern problems of stupendous
consequence are demanding prompt and virile action, when hun
dreds of important bills are pending, this hoary-headed repro
bate rises up and strikes a posture of inscrutable wisdom and
admonishes the world not to touch this sacred principle of un
limited “ freedom o f debate.” The venerable age of this foolish
precedent shall not save it from the just charge of imbecility
and legislative vice.
The power to obstruct the will of the people by the Senate
rules is the last ditch o f privilege.
In the House of Representatives the party in power with
its majority is carrying out the will of the majority, per
mitting reasonable debate and wide publicity to the views of all
Members. But in the Senate, while we have reorganized
the committees and have made important improvements in the
rules, there still remains the point of unlimited debate, of ir
relevant debate, o f dilatory motions, whereby the minority can
still prevent the action of the majority placed in power by the
people. The United States Senate is the only place where the
people’s will can be successfully thwarted, and here it can be
obstructed and denied by delays, by dilatory motions, by irrele
vant debate, and unlimited discussion.
It is easy to pass unobjected bills in the Senate; and there
are a great many bills that are brought up in the Senate that
are unobjected bills. But I will say that objected bills do not
pass through the Senate.
The new majority of the Senate is honestly pledged to the
people’s cause, and they must carry out their pledges if they
wish to retain the approval of the people of the United States.
I am in favor o f majority rule.
I am in favor of making the national will immediately effec
tive.
I am in favor of the Senate o f the United States having the
opportunity to do the things required by our great Nation.
I am opposed to the minority veto.
I am opposed to the discouragement of honest discussion by
the invitation to minority filibuster which this rule of unlimited
debate invites.
21124— 1258G
gP P ggggjgggggg
m
10
I am opposed to legislative blackmail, which this rule o f un
limited debate encourages, for we have all seen the Senate con
sent to appropriations and important amendments to important
bills which ought not to have been made, but which were made
rather than jeopardize the bill by the endless debate of a
Senator proposing and insisting on an amendment.
The minority veto permits the majority to be blackmailed
on the most important measures in order to conciliate the un
just demands o f the minority. The time has come to end this
sort of unwise parliamentary procedure with its train of evil
consequences.
I believe in the freedom of debate. I invite the freedom of
debate, but liberty is one thing and gross abuse of liberty is
another thing. Freedom of debate is a valuable principle,
worthy of careful preservation, for the majority is often in
structed by the minority; but freedom of debate is one thing,
and uncontrolled time-killing talk and unrestrained verbosity
used to enforce a factional veto is another thing.
The amendment to Rule X IX which I have proposed does not
prevent reasonable debate by any Senator, but it does permit the
majority, after due notice, to bring a matter to a conclusion
whenever it has become obvious that the debate is not sincere,
but is intended to enforce a minority veto.
Senator Vest, December 5, 1S94, well said:
That these rules “ coerce the Senators in charge o f a bill into
silence.”
That “ with the people of the United States demanding action
we have rules here that absolutely prevent it.”
That these rules “ facilitate parliamentary blackmail.”
That the history of the Senate is full of important amend
ments being put upon important bills, “ under the threat that
unless placed there the debate would be indefinite and almost
interminable.”
This rule has brought the Senate o f the United States into
disrepute, has greatly diminished its influence, has given it
the reputation of being an obstructive body, and many men have
been led to believe that the Senate was coerced and controlled
by a corrupt minority. Certain it is that if a minority can
exercise the veto, the corrupt interests of the country could well
afford commercially to promote the election of men to the floor
of the Senate, so as to obstruct legislation to which they
objected.
It is the result of these very rules which has led the people of
the United States to demand by a unanimous voice the direct
election o f Senators, so as to bring public pressure o f the
sovereign people on individual Members of the Senate, and com
pel them to respect the wishes of the people, under penalty o f
retirement from public life.
I pause here to say that for 90 years the people of this
country have been trying to establish the rule of direct election
of Senators, and it has always been the Senate that has pre
vented the people from having their will with regard to this
matter. Five times the measure passed the House of Repre
sentatives, the last two times almost by a unanimous vote of
the Members representing the people of this country in the
various congressional districts; yet the Senate stood like a
11
stone wall, refusing under these rules to carry out the will of
the people of the United States. The same thing has been
measurably true in regard to many other important items.
I venture now, Mr. President, seriously and solemnly to
remind every Senator upon this floor who votes against this pro
vision, who votes against majority rule in the Senate, who votes
against a reasonable control by the Senate itself of its own
deliberations, that he will have to answer for such vote before
the people o f his State, who will in the future elect the Senators
by direct vote of the people and who will nominate them by
direct vote of the people. And the Senator who by virtue of any
precedent or prejudice opposes in this body the free right of the
majority to rule will invite defeat by the majority of the people
in his own State, who surely believe in majority rule and will
resent the support of minority rule by their Senators on this
floor.
I have no fear of majority rule. I never have been afraid
of majority rule. The only thing we need to fear is the rule of
the minority by artifice and by wrongdoing. And I say frankly
to my colleagues from the South that the black-and-white
scarecrow o f the force bill is a ghost for which I have no
respect. We are entering a new era of majority rule, which will
deal justly and generously to rich and to poor alike, and with
equal generosity, justice, and mercy to men o f the black race,
as well as to the men of the white race or to any other race.
We need have no fear of majority rule.
Mr. President, I wish it to be clearly understood that my
demand for a change o f the rules o f the Senate is not at all
due to the idea that the adoption of such a rule is necessary in
order to pass the tariff bill or any other particular bill pending
or to be brought forward. My reason for this demand is that
I think the welfare of the Nation requires it; that the right
of the American people to a prompt redemption of party prom
ises is involved. The right of the American people to have
their will expressed at the polls promptly carried out I regard
as an imperative mandate from a Nation of 90,000.000 people,
and I think that a Senator who stands in the way of that man
date fails to perceive his duty to our great Nation, and that he
should not be surprised if the majority, who will in future
nominate Senators and elect Senators, will hold him to a strict
account for a denial of the right of the majority to rule.
I remind the Senate that in three years over 30 living Sena
tors who opposed the wishes o f the American people for the
direct election of Senators have been retired by the people.
P A R T Y PLEDG ES.
The Democratic Tarty makes certain pledges to the people
and appeals to the people for their support upon these pledges
promised to be performed; the Itepublican Party does likewise;
yet neither party, if in a majority, can control the Senate so
long as the minority veto remains as a part o f the rules of the
Senate. If this rule is not changed, then both parties in future
campaigns should put the following proviso as an addenda to
their national party platforms:
Provided, however, That in making the above pledges to the American
people it is distinctly to be understood by the people that we make these
pledges on the understanding that the opposite party does not forbid us
to carry out our promises by obstructing the fulfillment of our promise
21124— 12586
12
to you l>y filibustering in the Senate, in which event we will agree to
sustain the right of the opposite party to veto the redemption of our
pledges to you, by leaving the rules of the Senate in such a condition
that the opposing party may veto our effort to redeem the promises
made to you.
If the party trusted by the people is so imbecile as to leave
the Senate itself subject to the veto o f the defeated party, it
will deserve future defeat for such perfidious conduct.
The people of the United States have the right to rely upon
the party placed by them in power to fulfill the party pledges
made to the people, and if the leaders of both parties connive
with each other in the Senate to sustain the minority veto under
the pretense of “ freedom of debate,” they will have betrayed
the promises made to the people, both expressed and implied.
I f this rule be not changed so as to establish majority rule in
the Senate, and so as to enable either party to carry out its
promises to the American people, then neither party responsible
for such conduct deserves the confidence of the people of the
United States, and the people may well say in regard to party
promises made under such circumstances, as said by Macbeth in
the witches’ scene—
And be these juggling fiends no more believ’d
That palter with us in a double sense ;
That keep the word of promise to our ear
And break it to our hope.
Senator Vest, of Missouri, in 1893 introduced the following
resolution, the most moderate form of terminating so-called de
bate (C o n g r essio n al R ecord, p. 45, Dec. 5, 1S94) :
Amendment intended to be proposed to the rules of the Senate,
namely, add to Rule I the following section :
“ S e c . 2 . Whenever any bill, motion, or resolution is pending before
the Senate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated
on divers days, amounting in all to 30, it shall be in order for any
Senator to move that a time be fixed for the taking a vote upon such
bill, motion, or resolution, and such motion shall not be amendable or
debatable, but shall be immediately p u t ; and if adopted by a majority
vote of all the Members of the Senate, the vote upon such'bill, motion,
or resolution, with all the amendments thereto which may have been
proposed at the time of such motion, shall be had at the date fixed in
such original motion without further debate or amendment, except by
unanimous consent, and during the pendency of such motion to fix a
date, and also at the time fixed by the Senate for voting upon such
bill, motion, or resolution no other business of any kind or character
shall be entertained, except by unanimous consent, until such motion,
bill, or resolution shall have been finally acted upon.”
lion. Orville II. Platt, on September 21, 1S93, introduced the
following resolution (p. 163G) :
Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Senate as
unfinished business the presiding officer shall, upon the written request
of a majority of the Senators, fix a day and hour, and notify the Sen
ate thereof, when general debate shall cease thereon, which time shall
not be Ies3 than five days from the submission of such request and
he shall also fix a subsequent day and hour, and notify the Senate
thereof, when the vote shall be taken on the bill or resolution and
any amendment thereto without further debate, the time for taking the
vote to be not more than two days later than the time when general
debate is to cease, and in the interval between the closing of general
debate and the taking of the vote no Senator shall speak more than five
minutes, nor more than once upon the same proposition.
And, among other things, said:
The rules of the Senate, as of every legislative body, ought to facili
tate the transaction of business.
I think that proposition will not be
denied. The rules of the Senate as they stand to-day make it im
possible or nearly impossible to transact business. I think that propo
sition will not be denied. W e as a Senate are fast losing the respect
21124— 12580
13
of the people of the United States. W e are fast being considered a body
that exists for the purpose of retarding and obstructing legislation. We
are being compared in the minds of the people of this country to the
House of Lords in England, and the reason for it is that under our
rules it is impossible or nearly impossible to obtain action when there
is any considerable opposition to a bill here.
I think that I may safely say that there is a large majority upon this
side of the Senate who would favor the adoption of such a rule at the
present time.
Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts, 1893, submitted to the committee
a proposed substitute, as follows (p. 1637) :
Resolved, T hat the rules of the Senate be amended by adding the
fo llo w in g :
“ When any bill or resolution shall have been under consideration
for more than one day it shall be in order for any Senator to demand
that debate thereon be closed.
I f such demand be seconded by a
majority of the Senators present, the question shall forthwith be taken
thereon without further debate, and the pending measure shall take
precedence of all other business whatever. If the Senate shall decide to
close debate, the question shall be put upon the pending amendments,
upon amendments of which notice shall then be given, and upon the
measure in its successive stages according to the rules of the Senate,
but without further debate, except that every Senator who may desire
shall be permitted to speak upon the measure not more than once and
not exceeding one hour.
“ After such demand shall have been made by any Senator no other
motion shall be in order until the same shall have been voted upon by
the Senate, unless the same shall fail to be seconded.
“ A fter the Senate shall have decided to close debate no motion shall
be in order, but a motion to adjourn or to take a recess, when such
motion shall be seconded by a m ajority of the Senate. When either of
said motions shall have been lost or shall have failed of a second it
shall not be in order to renew the same until one Senator shall have
spoken upon the pending measure or one vote upon the same shall have
intervened.
'
“ For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namely, V II,
V III, IX , X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and X L , are
modified.”
M r. L odge, of Massachusetts, also then, as now, Senator of
the United States from Massachusetts, supported this proposal,
using the following language (p. 1637) :
It is because I believe that the moment for action has arrived that
I desire now simply to say a word expressive of my very strong belief
in the principle of the resolution offered by the Senator from Connecti
cut. Mr. Platt.
We govern in this country in our representative bodies by voting and
debate. It is most desirable to have them both. Both are of great im
portance. But if we are to have only one, then the one which leads to
action is the more important. To vote without debating may be hasty,
may be ill considered, may be rash, but to debate and never vote is
imbecility.
I am well awnre that there are measures now pending, measures
with reference to the tariff, which I consider more injurious to the
country than the financial measure now before us.
I am aware that
there is a measure which has been rushed into the House of Representa
tives at the very moment when they are calling on us Republicans for
nonpartisanship which is partisan in the highest^ degree and which in
volves evils which I regard as infinitely worse tnan anything that can
arise from any economic measure, because it is a blow at human rights
and personal liberty. I know that those measures are at hand. I know
that such a rule as is now proposed will enable a majority surelv to
put them through this body after due debate and will lodge in the hands
of a majority the power and the high responsibility which I believe the
majority ought always to have. But, Mr. President, I do not shrink
from the conclusion in the least. If it is right now to take a step like
this, as I believe it is, in order to pass a measure which the whole
country is demanding, then, as it seems to me, it is right to pass it for
all measures. If it is not right for this measure, then it is not right to
pass it for any other.
I believe that the most important principle in our Government is that
the majority should rule. It is for that reason that I have done what
lay in ray power to promote what I thought was for the protection of
2112-4— 1258(3
M!
i
14
elections, because I think the majority should rule at the ballot box. I
think equally that the m ajority should rule on this floor— not by violent
methods, but by proper dignified rules, such as are proposed by my
colleague and by the Senator from Connecticut. The country demands
action and we give them words.
For these reasons, M r. President, I
have ventured to detain the Senate in order to express my most cordial
approbation of the principle involved in the proposed rules which have
just been referred to the committee.
Senator David B. Hill, o f New York (1S93), proposed the fol
lowing amendment (p. 1039) :
Add to Rule IX the following section:
“ S ec . 2. Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Sen
ate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated on
divers days amounting in all to 30 days, it shall be in order for any
Senator to move to fix a date for the taking o f a vote upon such bill or
resolution, and such motion shall not be amended or debatable; and if
passed by a m ajority of all the Senators elected the vote upon such bill
or resolution, with all the amendments thereto which may be pending
at the time of such motion, shall be immediately had without further
debate or amendment, except by unanimous consent.”
Only last Congress, April G, 1911, tlie distinguished Senator
from New York, Mr. R oot, introduced the following resolution:
Resolved, That the Committee on Rules be, and it is hereby, instructed
to report for the consideration of the Senate a rule or rules to secure
more effective control by the Senate over its procedure, and especially
over its procedure upon conference reports and upon bills which have
been passed by the House and have been favorably reported in the Sen
ate.
(C o n g r e s s io n a l R e co rd , vol. 47, pt. 1, p. 107.)
21124— 12586
o
fell
M
THE PREVIOUS QUESTION—LIMITATION
OF DEBATE—CLOTURE
SPEECH
OP
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OJF O K L A H O M A
IN
THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STATES
FEBRUARY 13, 1915.
W A SH IN G T O N
81722— 14548
1915
The Senate had under consideration the motion by the Senator frofn
Missouri lM r. IIe ed ] to amend Itulc X X I I with the amendment pend
ing thereto.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, during the Inst two years. since
March, 1013, the Senate of the United States has had one im
portant measure after another brought before it for considera
tion by the Democratic administration. There was a prolonged
and obvious filibuster in tlie Senate dealing with the tariff bill.
In order probably to prevent any action upon the Federal re
serve bill, there was a resolute filibuster even on the question of
allowing a water supply for the city of San Francisco: there
was a filibuster, using that bill ns a general buffer against pro
posed progressive legislation, which made it necessary in han
dling that bill, as well as in handling the tariff bill and the
Federal reserve act. for the Senate to meet in the morning and
to run until 11 o’clock at night. We had no vacation during the
summer o f 1!)13 or during the summer of 1914, because of the
vicious filibustering of the Republican Senators. If this method
of filibustering shall remain as a practice of the Senate
of tlie United States, obviously the Congress of the United
States must remain in continuous session from one year’s end
to another in order to accomplisl even a slight part of what is
desired hy the people of tlie 'hiited States, and in order in solhe
small degree to enact the important measures which are pre
sented to tlie Senate for consideration on favorable reports
from tlie committees of the Senate.
I call attention to the large calendar which we have, a cal
endar of some thirty-odd pages, representing hundreds of meas
ures of importance, which wc never arrive a t; and even aside
from the calendar there are matters of the greatest possible im
portance, which are not being considered by the body and not
being presented by the committees, because it is well known
that to make reports upon them would be perfectly useless in
view of this now apparently well-established custom of a con
tinuous filibuster against everything desired by the majority
party.
This practice of filibustering has not been confined to one side
o f the Chamber only. I agree with the Senator from Nebraska
[Mr. N o r r i s | that the filibuster quickly passes from one side of
the Chamber to the other as an exigency may arise, according
to the desire of those who may he on either side of the aisle. I
submit, however, a filibuster favoring the people is not to he
Compared to filibuster against the peojxle. although an unjusti
fiable parliamentary procedure, except under very extraordinary
conditions. .
„
.
r .
81722— 14518
•8
4
I t h a s b een o ffe r e d a s a c r it ic is m o f m y v ie w w it h r e g a r d
CO a c l o t u r e r u l e f o r t h e S e n a t e , t h a t o n o n e o c c a s i o n — M a r c h 4,
1 9 1 1 — w h e n t h e q u e s t i o n a r o s e w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e a d m is s i o n
o f N e w M e x ic o to s t a t e h o o d w it h a c o r p o r a t io n - w iit t e n c o n s t it u
tio n a n d a n u n a m e n d a b le c o n s t itu tio n , a n d th e p re v e n tio n o f
A r iz o n a a t th e s a m e tim e b e in g a d m it t e d t o s t a t e h o o d . I d id
n o t h e s i t a t e t o u s e t h e p r a c t i c e o f t h e S e n a t e t o f i l i b u s t e r in
o r d e r to c o m p e l a v o t e o f t h e S e n a te jo i n t l y u p o n t h e a d m is s io n
o f A r iz o n a a n d N e w M e x ic o .
M y u s e o f t h is b a d p r a c t ic e to
s e r v e t h e p e o p l e d o e s n o t in a n y w i s e c h a n g e m y o p i n i o n a b o u t
t h e b a d n e s s o f t h e p r a c t ic e o f p e r m it t in g a filib u s te r .
I a cted
w it h in th e p r a c t ic e , b u t I t h in k t h e p r a c t ic e is in d e fe n s ib le , a n d
I illu s tr a te d its v ic io u s c h a r a c te r b y c o e r c in g th e S e n a te a n d
c o m p e l l i n g it t o y i e l d t o m y i n d i v i d u a l w i l l .
N o o n e m a n , n o m a tt e r h o w s in c e r e h e m a y b e o r h o w p a t r i
o t ic h is p u r p o s e , s h o u ld b e p e r m itte d t o t a k e th e flo o r o f th e
S e n a t e a n d k e e p t h e f l o o r a g a i n s t t h e w i l l o f e v e r y m a n in t h e
S e n a te e x c e p t h im s e lf, a n d c o e r c e a n d in t im id a t e th e S e n a te .
T o d o s o is t o d e s t r o y th e m o s t im p o r t a n t p r in c ip le o f s e lfg o v e r n m e n t — t h e r i g h t o f m a j o r i t y r u le .
I w is h to s u b m it a b r i e f s k e t c h o f w h a t h a s b e e n t h e r u le w it h
r e g a r d t o “ t h e p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n .”
I t i s a n o l d r u le , e s t a b
lis h e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f p r e v e n t in g a n a r b it r a r y a n d w illf u l
i n d i v i d u a l o r m i n o r i t y c o e r c i n g t h e m a j o r i t y in a p a r l i a m e n t a r y
body.
1 c a l l t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e S e n a t e t o a w o r k p r i n t e d in
* 3 9 0 , L e x . P a r l i a m e n t a r l a , g i v i n g t h e p r a c t i c e in t h e B r i t i s h
P a r lia m e n t . O n p a g e 2 9 2 o f t h a t w o r k t h is la n g u a g e o c c u r s :
I f upon a debate it be much controverted and much be said against the
question, any member may move that the question may be first made,
whether that question shall 1)6 put or whether it shall be now put,
which usually is admitted at the instance o f any member, especially if
it be seconded and insisted upon ; and if that question being put, it pass
In the affirmative then the main question is to be put immediately, and
no man may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter.
M r. P r e s id e n t, c o m in g d o w n t o th e d a y s o f th e C o n tin e n ta l
C o n g r e s s , I re a d fr o m p a g e 534 o f v o lu m e 11, 177S, o f t h e J o u r
n a ls o f t h e C o n tin e n ta l C o n g r e s s , g iv in g th e r u le s o f th a t b o d y
a n d s h o w in g th e p u r p o s e o f th e C o n tin e n ta l C o n g r e s s a t th a t
tim e t o p r e v e n t a n y in d iv id u a l o r m in o r it y u n n e c e s s a r ily c o n
s u m in g t h e t im e o f t h a t b o d y .
0. No Member shall speak more than twice in any one debate on the
same day, without leave of the House.
•
*
*
*
*
•
•
10. When a question is before the House no motion shall he received
unless for an amendment, for the precious question, to postpone the con
sideration of the main question or to commit it.
S e c t io n s 13 a n d 14 r e a d :
13. The previous question— that is, that the main question shall be
not now put— being moved, the question from the Chair shall be
that those who are for the previous question say aye and those
against it, no ; and if there be a majority of ayes, then the main ques
tion shall not be then put, but otherwise it shall.
14 Each Member present shall declare openly and without debate
his assent or dissent to a question by aye and no, when required by
motion of any one Member, whose name shall be entered ns having
made such motion previous to the 1’ rosident's putting the question;
the name and vote in such cases shall be entered upon the Journal,
and the majority of votes of each State shall be the vote of that State.
That
o f th e
c le a r ly
qu oru m
w a s th e r u le o f th e C o n tin e n ta l C o n g r e s s .
T h e r u le
H o u s e o f R e p r e s e n t a t iv e s is e q u a lly w e ll k n o w n t o
a n d o p e n ly r e c o g n iz e th e p r e v io u s q u e s tio n , c o u n t a
, a n d b y a r u l e fix a t i m e f o r v o t i n g o u a n y q u e s t i o n .
817.22—-14548
5
W h e n it c a m e t o d r a f t in g th e C o n s t it u t io n o f t h e U n ite d
S t a t e s M r. P i n c k n e y p r o p o s e d in h i s o r i g i n a l d r a f t a p r o v i s i o n
th a t th e y e a s a n d n a y s o f th e M e m b e rs o f e a ch H o u s e o n a n y
q u e s t i o n s h a l l , at the desire of any certain number of Members,
be entered on the Journal.
T h e c o m m it t e e on d e ta il, p a g e 1 6 0 o f v o lu m e 2 o f th e r e c o r d s
o f th e F e d e r a l c o n v e n t io n , b y F a r r a n d , r e p o r te d a s f o l l o w s :
The House of Kepicsentnfives and the Senate, when tt shall be
ncling in a legislative capacMy (each House) shall keep a Journal of
its proceedings, and shall from time to time publish them, *
*
*
and the yeas and nays of the Members of each House on any ques
tion shall, at the desire of any Member, be entered on the Journal.
T h a t w a s r e ta in e d t h r o u g h o u t a s a p a r t o f th e C o n s t it u t io n
a n d w a s d i s c u s s e d o n F r i d a y t h e 1 0 th d a y o f A u g u s t , p a g e 2 5 5 ,
us fo llo w s :
Mr Gov1'. Morris urged that if the yeas and nays were proper at all
any individual ought to be authorized to cull for them : and moved an
amendment to that effect, saying that the small States would other
wise be under a disadvantage, and find it difficult to get a concur
rence of one-fiftb.
T h a t w a s v o t e d d o w n u n a n im o u s l y , a u d t h e f o l l o w i n g S t a t e s :
N ew H a m p s h ir e , M a s s a ch u s e tts , C o n n e c t ic u t , N e w J e r s e y , P e n n
s y lv a n ia . D e la w a r e , M a r y la n d , V ir g in ia , N o r t h C a r o lin a , S o u t h
C a r o l i n a , a n d G e o r g i a v o t e d t o a g r e e t o t h e r u l e t h a t one-fifth
of the Members might call for the record of the yeas anti
nays as a constitutional right.
I c a ll t h e a t te n tio n o f th e S e n a te to t h e p r o p e r in t e r p r e t a t io n
o f t h a t la n g u a g e .
VVe h a v e o r d i n a r i l y h e l d t o t h e p r a c t i c e t h a t
th e y e a s a n d n a y s s h o u ld b e c a lle d a f t e r th e v o te h a d b een o r
d e r e d , b u t t h e r ig h t to h a v e th e y e a s a u d n a y s im m e d ia t e ly
c a lle d u n d e r t h e C o n s t it u t io n o f th e U n ite d S ta te s is a c o n s t i
t u t io n a l r ig h t.
A s a S e n a t o r f r o m O k l a h o m a , I h a v e a r ig h t ,
b e in g p re s e n t, i f I a m s u p p o r te d b y o n e -fift h o f th e M e m b e rs o f
th is b o d y , to h a v e m y \ o te a n d th e v o te o f e v e r y o t h e r M e m b e r
o f t h is b o d y r e c o r d e d o n a n y p e n d in g q u e s tio n w it h o u t h a v in g
m y r i g h t d e n i e d b y a n o r g a n i z e d fi l i b u s t e r .
Y ou can not record
a v o t e o n t h e J o u r n a l o f t h e S e n a t e unless you take the vote;
a n d , t h e r e f o r e , the constitutional right to hare my vote recorded
u p o n t h e J o u r n a l a t t h e r e q u e s t o l' o n e - f i f t h o f t h e M e m b e r s
p r e s e n t c a r r i e s a p r e s e n t r i g h t a n d not a future expectation o r
v a g u e h o p e a t s o m e u n r e c o r d e d f u t u r e t i m e t h a t it m a y b e r e
c o r d e d , w h e n a m i n o r i t y o r a n i n d i v i d u a l m a y p e r m i t it .
I
h a v e , t h e r e fo r e , a c o n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t, w h e n s u p p o r te d b y o n e f i f t h o f t h e M e m b e r s o f t h i s b o d y , t o d e m a n d t h e immedialo
taking of the yeas and nays on any question pending a n d tho
record of that vote in the Journal o f the Senate.
M r. W I L L I A M S .
M r. P r e s id e n t, w ill t h e S e n a to r a llo w m e
t o a s k h im a q u e s t i o n ?
M r. O W E N .
I y ie ld to th e S e n a to r.
M r. W I L L I A M S .
Is it n o t a t r u th a p p lic a b le t o e v e r y t h in g
t h a t w h e r e v e r a r i g h t i s g r a n t e d a t a l l it i s a r i g h t in p ra e s e n ti
a n d n o t in f u t u r o . u n l e s s t h e g r a n t i s m o d i f i e d b y a n e x p r e s s
s t a t e m e n t t h a t i t i s in f u t u r o ?
M r. O W E N .
A b s o lu te ly .
N o w , M r. P re s id e n t, I w a n t to c a ll
t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e S e n a t e t o w h a t h a s b e e n d o n e in r e g a r d t o
t h is q u e s tio n o f c lo t u r e o r lim it a t io n o f d e b u t e b y t h e S e n a te
I t s e l f.
81722— 14548
T h e S e m ite r a le s , n s e s t a b lis h e d a t t h e b e g in n in g o f t h is G o v
e r n m e n t . a d o p t e d in 1 7 S 9 . a r e f o u n d u p o n p a g e 2 0 o f t h e A n n a l s
o f t h e F ir s t C o n g r e s s , f r o m 17S9 to 1791. v o lu m e 1.
T h a t v o l
u m e c o n t a in s th e r u le s o f th e S e n a te a s o f th a t d a t e , fr o m N o. 1
to 19. a n d t h o s e r u le s e x p r e s s ly p r o v id e a g a in s t th e a b u s e o f t h e
t i m e o f t h e S e n a t e in a n u m b e r o f p a r t i c u l a r s .
F i r s t , in p a r a
g r a p h 2, it i s p r o v i d e d t h a t —
2. No Member shall speak to another nr otherwise interrupt the busi
ness of the Senate, or read any printed paper, while the Journals or
public papers are reading, or when any Member is speaking in any
debate.
J». Every Member when lie speaks shall address the Chair, standing
in his place, and when he has finished shall sit down.
I t o b v io u s ly c o n t e m p la t e d h is fin is h in g w it h in s o m e r e a s o n
a b le t im e a n d t a k in g h is se a t.
4. No Member shall speak more than twice in any one debate on
the same day without leave cf the Senate.
S h o w in g
not
bo
th e
in t e n t io n
of
th e
S e n a te
th a t
one
m an
s h o u ld
a l lo io c il t o m o n o p o l i z e t h e t i m e o f t h e S e n a t e .
P aragraph S rea d s:
R. W hile a question is before the Senate no motion shall be received
unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for postponing
the main question, or to commit it, or to adjourn.
A n d p a ra g ra p h 9 p r o v id e s :
n The previous question bcinq moved and seconded, the question
from the Chair shall he. “ Shall the main question he now p u t ? ” And
If the nays prevail the main question shall not then he put.
G u a d iv id e d v o te th e m a in , q u e s tio n w a s t o b e p u t is a
n e c e s s a ry c o n s e q u e n c e th a t flo w s fr o m th a t la n g u a g e .
It re
q u i r e d a m a j o r i t y v o t e in t h e n e g a t i v e t o p r e v e n t t h e c l o s u r e
o f d e b a t e u n d e r th e o r ig in a l r u le s o f th e S e n a te .
P a r a g r a p h 11 r e a d s :
11. ir/iCH the yeas and naps shall he called for bp one-fifth of the
Members present, each Member called upon shall, unless for special
reasons he he excused by tlie Senate, declare openly and without debate
his assent or dissent to the question.
M r . P r e s i d e n t , t h a t w a s t h e r u l e o f t h e S e n a t e u p u n t il 1S 03.
A t th a t t im e th e r u le s w e r e m o d ifie d s o a s t o o m it th e r e f e r
e n c e to th e p r e v io u s q u e s tio n , n o t b y p u ttin g in a n y r a le d e n y
in g th e r ig h t o f th e p r e v io u s q u e s tio n , b u t m e re ly o m it t in g th e
p r e v io u s q u e s tio n , o n th e b r o a d t h e o r y th a t c o u r t e s y o f fr e e
s p e e c h in t h e S e n a t e w o u l d p r e c l u d e a n y M e m b e r f r o m t h e
a b u s e o f t h e c o u r t e s y o f fr e e s p e e c h e x t e n d e d t o h im b y b is
c o lle a g u e s , a n d w o u ld p r e c lu d e a S e n a to r fr o m c o n s u m in g th e
t i m e o f t h e S e n a t e u n d u l y , u n f a i r l y , o r i m p u d e n t l y , in d i s r e g a r d
o f t h e c o u r t e s y e x t e n d e d t o h im b y b is c o lle a g u e s .
T h e fa ilu r e
to m o v e th e p r e v io u s q u e s tio n n o w is m e r e ly a m a tte r o f
c o u r t e s y in t h i s b o d y , a n d c a r r i e s w i t h i t , s o l o n g a s it l a s t s ,
t h e r e c ip r o c a l c o u r t e s y o n b e h a lf o f t h o s e t o w h o m t h is c o u r
t e s y is e x t e n d e d t h a t t h e y s h a l l n o t i m p o s e u p o n t h e i r c o l
le a g u e s w h o h a v e e x te n d e d th e c o u r te s y to th e m o f fr e e d o m o f
d e b a t e o r d e n y t h e ir c o u r t e o u s a n d lo n g -s u ffe r in g c o lle a g u e s
th e r ig h t to a v o te .
F re e d o m o f d e b a te m a y n o t u n d e r su ch
a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n lie c a r r i e d t o t h e p o i n t o f a g a r r u l o u s a b u s e
o f th e flo o r o f t h e S e n a te b y th e r e a d in g o f o ld r e c o r d s a n d
e n d l e s s s p e e c h m a k i n g m a d e a g a i n s t t i m e , w h i c h h a s 'e m p t i e d
t h e S e n a t e C h a m b e r a n d d e s t r o y e d g e n u i n e d e b a t e in t h i s b o d y .
81722— 14548
..
r
hr
7
A t t h e t i m e t l ie p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n w a s d r o p p e d f r o m t h e w r i t t e n
r u le s o f th e S e n a te a s a r ig h t u n d e r su ch w r itte n r u les t h e r e
h a d b e e n n o n e e d f o r t h e “ p r e v i o u s q u e s t i o n .”
T h e p r e v io u s
q u e s tio n h a d o n ly b een m o v e d f o u r t im e s a n d o n ly u s e d t h r e e
t i m e s f r o m 1 7 S 9 t o 1S0G — t h a t i s . d u r i n g 1 7 y e a r s .
T h e r e is n o r e a l d e b a t e in t h e S e n a t e . O c c a s i o n a l l y a S e n a t o r
m a k e s a s p e e c h t h a t is w o r t h lis t e n in g t o — o c c a s io n a lly , a n d
O n ly o c c a s i o n a l l y .
T h e f a c t is t h a t e v e n s p e e c h e s o f th e g r e a t
e st v a lu e w h ic h a r e d e liv e r e d o n t h is flo o r h a v e litt le o r n o
a u d ie n c e n o w b e c a u s e o f t h is g r o s s a b u s e o f t h e p a t ie n c e o f
t h e ' S e n a t e , w h i c h h a s b e e n b r o u g h t t o a p o i n t w h e r e m e n a i 'e
n o lo n g e r w illin g t o b e a b u s e d b y lo u d -m o u t h e d v o c if e r a t io n o f
r o b u s t - l u n g e d p a r t i s a n s c o n f e s s e d l y s p e a k i n g a g a i n s t t i m e in
a filib u s te r , a n d a r e u n w illin g to k e e p t h e ir s e a ts o n t h is flo o r
t o lis te n t o a n e n d le s s t ir a d e in t e n d e d n o t t o in s t r u c t t h e S e n
a te . in t e n d e d n o t t o a d v is e th e S e n a te , in te n d e d n o t f o r l e g it i
m a te d e b a te , n o t f o r a n h o n e s t e x e r c is e o f fr e e d o m o f sp e e ch ,
b u t f o r t h e s in is te r , u lt e r io r , h a lf-c o n c e a le d p u r p o s e o f k illin g
t i m e in t h e S e n a t e a n d t h e r e b y p r e v e n t i n g t h e S e n a t e f r o m a c t
in g , t h u s e s t a b l i s h i n g a m i n o r i t y v e t o u n d e r t h e p r e t e n s e , t h e
b a ld p re te n s e , t h e im p u d e n t a n d fa ls e p r e t e n s e , o f f r e e d o m o f
d eb a te.
T h i s c o u r t e s y in t h e S e n a t e w a s n o t g r e a t l y a b u s e d p r i o r t o
th e w a r ? n o r u n til t h e tie rc e r e c e n t c o n flic t b e g a n b e t w e e n t h e
p lu t o c r a c y a n d m o n o p o ly a n d t h e c o m m o n p e o p le .
Its a b u se
d u r i n g t h e l a s t c e n t u r y le d , h o w e v e r , t o v a r i o u s p r o p o s a l s b y
v a r i o u s d i s t i n g u i s h e d M e m b e r s o f t h i s b o d y o f c l o t u r e in v a r i o u s
fo r m s .
T h e fi r s t o n e t h a t I c a r e t o c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o i s t h a t o f M r .
C l a y , in 1 S 4 1 . i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h w h i c h M r . H e n r y C l a y s a i d
a m o n g o t h e r t h in g s — t h is w a s o n t h e 1 2 th o f J u ly , 1S 41— t h a t —
lie was ready at any moment to bring forward and support a measure
which should give to the majority the control of the business of the
Senate of the United States.
Let them denounce it as much as they
pleased, its advocates, unmoved by any of their denunciations and
threats, standing firm in support of the interests which he believed the
country demands, for one he was ready for the adoption o f a rule
Which would place the business o f the Senate under the control of a
majority of the Senate.
I n t h e f i r s t s e s s io n in t h e T h i r t y - f i r s t C o n g r e s s , J u l y 2 7 . ISnO,
M r. D o u g la s , th e n a S e n a to r o f th e U n it e d S ta te s , s u b m itte d th e
fo llo w in g m o tio n f o r c o n s id e r a t io n :
Resolved, That the following be, and the came is, adopted as a stand
ing rule of the Sen ate:
That the previous question shall lie admitted when demanded by a
majority of the Members of the Senate present, and its effect shall be
to put an end to all debate and bring the Senate to a direct vote, first,
upon a motion to commit, if such motion shall have been made—
A n d so fo rth .
M r . H a l e , o n A p r i l 4 , 1SG2, b r o u g h t in a r e s o l u t i o n o f l i k e
p u r p o r t ; M r. W a d e , o n J u n e 2 1 , 1S64, p r o p o s e d a lik e r e s o lu t io n ;
M r. P o m e r o y , o n F e b r u a r y 13, 1S G 9; M r. H a m lin , o n M a r c h 10 ,
1 8 7 0 ; a n d v a r io u s o th e r S e n a to rs.
I a s k , w it h o u t r e a d in g th e s e
v a r i o u s p r o p o s a l s , t o p l a c e t h e m in t h e R ecord f o r t h e i n f o r m a
t io n o f th e S e n a te o f th e U n it e d S ta te s .
T h e P I t E S I D I N G O F F I C E R ( M r . R ansdell in the c h a ir).
W it h o u t o b je c t io n , it w ill b e so o r d e r e d .
81722— 14548
6
T h e m a t t e r r e fe r r e d t o is a s f o l l o w s :
LIMITATION OF DEBATE.
_ ,
i i
,
{1st scss. 31st Cong., J. of S.. 482. July 27, 1S30.1
Mr. Douglas submitted the following motion for consideration :
Resolved, That the following be, and the same is, adopted as a stand
ing rule of the Senate.
That the previous question shall be admitted when demanded by a
majority of the Members of the Senate present, and its effect shall be
to put an end to all debate, and bring the Senate to a direct vote,
first, upon a motion to commit, if such motion shall have been m ade;
and if this motion docs not prevail, then, second, upon amendments
reported by a committee, if a n y ; then, third, upon pending amend
m en ts; and. finally, where such questions shall, or when none shall
have been offered, or when none may be pending, then it shall be upon
the main question or questions leading directly lo a final decision of
the subject matter before the Senate. On a motion for the previous
question, and prior to the seconding of the same, a call of the Senate
shall be in order; but after a majority shall have seconded such
motion no call shall be in order prior to a decision of the main ques
tion.
On a previous question there shall be no debate.
All inci
dental questions arising after a motion shall have been made for the
previous question and, pending such motion, shall be decided, whether
on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Aug. 28. The resolution was laid on the table (ib„ 5 8 8 ).)
[2d sess. 37th Cong.. J. of S.. 370, Apr. 4, 1862.]
Mr. Hale submitted the following resolution for consideration :
Resolved, That the following be added to the rules of the Senate;
The Senate may. at any time during the present rebellion, by a vote
of a majority of the Members present, fix a time when debate on any
matter pending before the Senate shall cease and term inate: and the
Senate shall, when the time fixed for terminating debate arrives, pro
ceed to vote, without debate, on the measure and all amendments pend
ing and that may be offered.
[1st sess. 3Stb Cong., .1. of S.. 601, June 21. 1864.]
Mr. Wade submitted the following resolution for consideration:
“ Resolved, That during the remainder of the present session of Con
gress no Senator shall speak more than once on any one question before
the Senate; nor shall such speech exceed 10 minutes, without leave of
the Senate expressly given ; and when such leave is asked it shall ba
decided by the Senate without debate; and it shall be the duty of tlio
President to see that this rule is strictly enforced."
[3d sess. 40th Cong.. J of S „ 256^ Feb. 13, 1S60.]
Mr. Pomeroy submitted the following resolution, which was ordered
to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the following be added to the standing rules of the
Sen ate;
R ule — . While the motion for the previous question shall not bo
entertained in the Senate, yet the Senators, by a vote of three-fifths of
the Members, may determine the time when debate shall close upon
nny pending proposition, and then the main question shall be taken
by a vote of the Senate in manner provided for under existing rules.’ *'
[2d s^ss. 41st Ceng., J. of S.. 347, Mar. 10. 1870 ]
Mr. Hamlin submitted the following resolution for consideration ;
“
That w h e n e v e r any question shall h a v e been under con
s i d e r a t i o n for t w o d a y 3 i t shall be competent, without debate, for the
Senate, by a t w o - t h i r d s majority, t o fix a time, not less than one day
thereafter, when the main question shall be taken ; but each Senator
w h o shall offer an amendment shall be allowed five minutes to speajs
u p o n the same, and one Senator a like time in reply.”
[ l b , 412, Mar 25. 1870.]
Mr. Wilson submitted the following motion for consideration;
Ordered, That the Select Committee on Uulc3 be instructed to con
sider the expediency of adopting a rule for the remainder of the session
providing that whenever any bill has been considered for two days tlio
question on ordering it to a third reading may be ordered by a twothirds vote of the Senators present and voting.
[Ib ., '*63. Apr. 7. 1870 ]
The Senate next proceeded to consider (the above) ; and
On motion of Mr. Edmunds.
Ordered, That the said resolution be passed over.
Resolved,
81722— 14548
9
[lb ., 492, Apr. 14, 1879.]
The Senate next resumed the consideration of the resolution sub
mitted by Mr. Wiison on the 25th of March last, instructing the Select
Committee on the Uevision of the Itules to consider the expediency of
adopting a rule for the remainder of the session tixing a time when tho
quesLion on ordering a hill to a third reading shall be p u t; and
The resolution was agreed to.
[2d sess. 41st Cong., J. of S., 778, June 9, 1870.]
Mr. Pomeroy submitted the following resolution for consideration,
which was ordered to be printed :
Unsolved, That the thirtieth rule of the Senate be amended by add
ing thereto the follow ing:
“ And any pending amendment to an appropriation hill may be laid
on the tab’e without affecting the bill.
“ It shall be in order at any time when an appropriation bill Is
under consideration, by a two-thirds vote, to order the termination of
debate at a time fixed in respect to any item or amendment thereof
then under consideration, which order “shall be acted upon without
debate.
[2d sesj 42d Cong., J. of S., Apr. 1, 1872.]
Mr. I’omcroy submitted the following resolution for consideration:
Resolved, That upon any amendment to general appropriation bills
remarks upon the same by any one Senator shall be limited to five
minutes.
[2d sess. 42d Cong. J. of S„ G14, Apr. 2G.]
Mr. Scott submitted the folowing resolution, which was ordered to
be printed :
Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order, pending
on appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on the pending bill
and amendments thereto to live minutes by any Senator on the pending
motion, and the motion to limit debate shall be decided without debate.
[Ib „ G30, Apr. 29, 1872.]
On motion by Mr. Scott,
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him
on the 261h instant, to confine debate on appropriation bills and amend
ments thereto for the remainder of the session ; and the resolution hav
ing been modified by M r. Scott to read as follow s:
“ Resolved, That during the present session it s' nll be in order,
pending an appropriation bill, to move to confine debate on amend
ments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion,
and the motion to limit debate shall be decided without debate.”
A fter debate,
On motion by Mr. Vickers, to amend the resolution by inserting after
the word “ thereto,” the words “ germane to the subject matter of tho
bill.”
|Several proposed amendments to this part of the resolution are
omitted.]
On motion by Mr. Cdmunds, to amend the resolution by adding
thereto the follow in g:
“ And no amendment to any such bill making legislative provisions
other than such as directly relate to the appropriations contained in
the bill shall be received."
It was determined in the affirmative— yeas 25, nays 19.
[The names are omitted.]
So the amendment was agreed to.
The resolution having been further amended on motion of Mr. Scott,
on the question to agree thereto as amended in the following w ords:
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order to move
a recess; and pending an appropriation bill to move to confine debate
on amendment thereto to live minutes bv any Senator on toe pending
motion, and such motions shall he decided without debate; and no
amendment to any such hill making legislative provisions other than
such as directly relate to the appropriations contained in the bill shall
be received.”
.
H
.
33
It was determined In the affirmative, \Nays-----------------------------------------{ km va
13
[Tho names are omitted.]
So the resolution was agreed to.
81722— 14548
I
10
It:
f3cl scss. 4 2 d Cong., J. of S., G15, March 18, 1S73.1
Mr. W right submitted the following resolution for consideration,
which was "ordered to he printed:
“ Rcsciucd, That the Committee on the Revision of the Rules he instructed to inquire into the propriety of so amending the rules as to
provide—
•• First. 'That debate shall he confined and he relevant to the subject
matter before the Senate.
•• Second That the previous question may be demanded either by a
majority vote or in some modified form.
“ Third. For taking up bills in their regular order on the calendar;
for their disposition in such order; prohibiting special orders; and re
quiring that bills not finally disposed of wheta thus called shall go
to the foot of the calendar unless otherwise directed.’ ’
Tib., GIG, Mar. 19, 1873.]
On motion by Air. W right, that the Senale proceed to the consider
ation of the resolution submitted by him on the 171 1 instant instruct
ing the Select Committee on the Revision of the Rules to inquire into
the propriety of so amending the rules of the Senate as to coniine debate
to the subject matter before the Senate, to provide for a previous ques
tion, and the order cf the consideration of bills on the calendar, and
the disposition th ereo f;
A fter debate,
(Von c*
0"
30
II was determined in the n
e g
a
t i v
e , __ I I I I I I
[The names are omitted.]
So the motion to proceed to the consideration of the said resolution
was not agreed to.
[ Co ngressional R ecord, 3d scss. 42d Cong, fspec. scss.) 1 1 3 -1 1 7 .]
[Ib „ G17, Mar. 20, 1S73.]
M r. W right submitted the following resolution for consideration;
which was ordered to be printed:
“ Resolved, That the following be added to the rules of the Senate:
•• Kule — . No debate shall be in order unless it relate to, or be perti
nent to. the question before the Senate.
“ Rule — . Debate may be closed at any time upon any bill or measure
by the order of two-thirds of the Senators present, after notice cf 24
hours to that effect.
“ Rule — . All bills shall he placed upon the calendar in their order,
and shall be disposed of in such order unless postponed bv the order of
the Senale. All special orders are prohibited, except by unanimous con
sent ; and bills postponed shall, unless otherwise ordered, go to the foot
of the calendar.
Tib., G18, Alar. 21, 1873.]
On motion by Mr. W right, that the Senate proceed to the considera
tion cf the resolution yesterday submitted by him, providing additional
rules for the Senate.
A fter debate.
Ordered, That the further consideration of the subject be postponed
to the first Alondav of December next.
[C o ngressional R ecord , 3d scss. 42d Cong. (spec, sc ss.), 1 3 5 -1 3 7 .]
l i s t scss. 43d Cong., .7. of S.. 532, Alay G. 1 874.]
Air. Edmunds submitted the following resolution which was referred
to the Select Committee on the Revision of the R u les:
“ Resolved, That t he eleventh rule of the Senate he amended by add
ing thereto the following w ord s: “ Nor shall such debate be allowed
upon any motion to dispose of a pending matter and proceed to con
sider another.
When a question is under ccnsideralion the debate
thereon shall be germane to such question or to the subject to which it
relates.”
[Ib., 57 8 , Alay 15, 1874.]
Mr. Ferry o f Alicbigan, from the Select Committee on the Revision
of the Rules, to whom was referred the resolution submitted by Mr.
Edmunds the Gill instant to amend the eleventh rule of the Senate,
reported it with an amendment.
[2d scss. 43d Cong., .7. of S., 128, Jan. 18, 1S75.]
Air. Alorrill of Alaine, submitted the following resolution for consid
eration, which was ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at
any time to move a recess, and, pending an appropriation bill, to move
to confine debate on cmendments thereto to five minutes uy any Senator
on the pending motion, and such motions shall be decided without
debate.”
81722— 14548
I
11
[lb ., 134, Jan. 19, 1S75.]
Tlie Senate proceeded to consider the resolution yesterday submitted
by Mr. Morrill of Maine, to limit debate on amendments to appropri
ation b ills ; and
After debate,
The resolution was agreed to, as follows :
. “ Resolved, T hat during the present session it shall be in order at any
time to move a recess, and, pending an appropriation bill, to move
to coniine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator
on the pending motion, and such motion shall be decided without
debate.”
(C o n g r e s s i o n a l ItECORD, 2d sess., 43d Cong., 5 6 0 -5 7 0 .)
[1st sess. 441h Cong., J. of S., 243,' Feb. 28, 1870.)
Mr. Morrill of Maine submitted the following resolution for consid
eration, which was ordered to be printed:
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at
any time to move a recess, and, pending an appropriation bill, to move
to confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator
On the pending motion, and such motion shall be decided without
debate.”
Tib., 253, Feb. 29, 187G.)
On motion by Mr. Morrill, of Maine,
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution yesterday submitted
by him to confine debate on amendments to appropriation b ills ; and,
having been amended on motion by Mr. Morrill, of Maine,
On motion by Mr. Bayard, to further amend the resolution by add
ing thereto the following :
But no amendment to an appropriation bill shall be in order which
is not germane to such a bill,”
A fter debate,
--------------- •------------------------------5g
It was determined in the negative,
[The names are omitted.)
So the amendment was not agreed to.
No further amendment being proposed, the resolution as amended was
agreed to, ns fo llo w s:
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at any
time to move a recess, and. pending an appropriation b 11, to move to
confine debate on amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator
on the pending motion, and such motions shall be decided without
debate.”
[2d sess. 45th Cong., J of S., 314, Mar. 20, 1S78.)
Mr. Windom submitted the following resolution for consideration :
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at
any time pending an appropriation bill to move to confine debate on
amendments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending
motion, and such motion shall be decided without debate.”
[2d sess. 45th Cong., J. o f S.. 319, Mar. 21, 1878.)
On motion by Mr. Windom,
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution yesterday submitted
by him, providing for a limitation of debate on amendments to appro
priation bills, and
The resolution was agreed to.
13d sess. 45th Cong., J. of S „ 32, Dec. 5, 1878.)
Mr. Anthony submitted the following resolution for consideration:
“ Resolved, That to-day, at 1 o'clock, the Senate will proceed to the
consideration of the calendar, and bills that are not objected to shall
be taken up in their order, and each Senator shall be entitled to speak
once, and for five minutes only, unless, upon motion, the Senate should
at any time otherwise order; and the objection may be interposed at
any stage of the proceedings; and this order shall take precedence of
special orders or unfinished business unless otherwise ordered.”
(The resolution went over, objection being made.)
[3d sess. 45th Cong., .T. of S., 114. Jan. 14, 1879.)
Mr. Anthony submitted the following resolution, which was consid
ered, by unanimous consent, and agreed t o :
“ Resolved, That on Friday next, at 1 o'clock, the Senate will pro
ceed to the consideration of the calendar, and bills that are not objected
to shall he taken up in their order, and each Senator shall be entitled to
speak once, and for five minutes only, unless, upon motion, the Senate
should at any time otherwise order, and the objection may be interposed
at any stage of the proceedings.”
( C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d , 3 d sess. 4 5 t h C o n g . . 4 2 7 . )
81722— 14548
12
[3d sess. 45th Cong., J. o f S.. 138, Jan. 20, 1879.]
Mr. Anthony submitted the following resolution, which was consid
ered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to :
“ Resolved, That at the conclusion of the morning business for each
day after this day the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the
calendar, and continue such consideration until half past 1 o'clock, and
bills that are not objected to shall be taken up in their order, and each
Senator shall be entitled to speak once, and for five minutes only, unless,
upon motion, the Senate should at any time otherwise order, and tho
objection may be interposed at any stage of the proceedings.”
[3d sess. 45th Cong., J. of S „ 189, Jan. 30, 1879.]
Mr. Anthony submitted the following resolution for consideration :
“ Resolved, That the order of the Senate of January 20. 1879, relativo
to the consideration of bills on the calendar shall not be suspended
unless by unanimous consent or upon one day’s notice.”
[3d sess. 45th Cong., .T. of S., 325, Feb. 20, 1879.]
Mr. Windom submitted the following resolution for consideration :
“ Resulted, That during the present session it shall be in order at any
time pending an appropriation bill to move to confine debate on amend
ments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion,
and such motion shall he decided without debate.”
[3d sess. 45th Cong., J. of S., 373, Feb. 25, 1879.]
On motion by Mr. Allison,
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by Mr.
Windom on the 20th instant to confine debate on amendments to gen
eral appropriation b ills ; and
The resolution was agreed to.
[2d sess. 4Gth Cong., J. of S., 594, May 22, 1880.]
- The hour of half past 12 o'clock having arrived, the President pro
tempore asked the Senate to place its construction upon the order of
February 5, 1880, and known as the “ Anthony rule,” and submitted
the following proposition : “ Docs the consideration of the calendar con
tinue until half past 1 o’clock, notwithstanding the change of the hour
of meeting of the S e n a te ?”
[3d sess. 4Gth Cong., J. of S., 244, Feb. 12, 18S1.]
On motion by Mr. Morgan,
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution submitted by him tho
10th instant, limiting debate on a motion to proceed to the considera
tion of a bill or resolution; and having been modified on the motion of
Mr. Morgan, the resolution as modified was agreed to. as follo w s:
“ Resolved, That for the remainder o f the present session, on a motion
to take up a bill or resolution for consideration, at the present or at a
future time, debate shall be limited to 15 minutes, and no Senator shall
speak to such motion more than once, or for a longer time than 0
minutes.”
[3d sess. 4Gth Cong., J. of S., 234. Feb. 10, 1881.]
Mr. Morgan submitted the following resolution for consideration:
“ Resolved, That on a motion to take up a bill or resolution for con
sideration at the present or at a future time debate shall be limited to
15 minutes, and no Senator shall speak to such motion oftener than
once, or for a longer time than 5 minutes.”
[1st sess. 47th Cong., J. o f S., 44G, Mar. 20, 1S82.]
On motion of Mr. Anthony, to amend the order of the Senate known
as the “ Anthony rule,” so as to extend the time for the consideration of
the calendar of bills and resolutions until 2 o’ clock p. m., it was deter
mined in the affirmative.
[1st sess. 47th Cong., J. of S., G32, Apr. 2G, 1882.]
Mr. Edmunds submitted the following resolution for consideration
which was ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the special rule of the Senate for the consideration
of matters on the calendar under limited debate be, and the same is
hereby, abolished.”
Mr. Iloar submitted the following resolution for consideration, which
was ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the resolve known as the “ Anthony r u le ” shall not
hereafter be so construed as to authorize the consideration of any meas
ure under a limitation of debate of five minutes, or to speaking but once
by each Senator after objection.”
81722— 14548
13
,
[2d sess.
47th Cons.. J. o f S „ 282, Feb. 3, 1883.]
•Mr. riaie submitted the following resolution for consideration, which
was ordered to be pointed :
“ Resolved, That upon each amendment hereafter offered to the bill
entitled ‘An act to reduce internal revenue taxation,’ each Senator may
speak once for five minutes, and no more.”
[2d sess. 47th Cong., .T. of S„ 306, Feb. 23, 1883.]
Mr. Ilale submitted the following resolution for consideration :
“ Resolved, That during the present session it shall be in order at any
time pending an appropriation bill to move to confine debate on amend
ments thereto to five minutes by any Senator on the pending motion, and
said motion shall be decided without debate.”
[1st sess. 48th Cong., J. of S., 354, Feb. 2<3, 1884.]
Mr. Harris submitted the following resolution, which was referred to
the Committee on Rules and ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the seventh rule of the Senate be amended by adding
thereto the following w ords:
“ * The Presiding Officer may at any time lay, and it shall be in order
at any time for a Senator to move to lay, before the Senate any bill or
other matter sent to the Senate by the President or the House of Rep
resentatives, and any question pending at that time s' all be suspended
for this purpose.
Any motion so made shall be determined without
debate.’ ”
Mr. Harris submitted the following resolution, which was referred to
the Committee on Rules and ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the eighth rule of the Senate be amended by adding
thereto the following words :
“ ‘All motions made before 2 o’clock to proceed to the consideration
of any matter shall be determined without debate.’ ”
[1 st sess. 48th Cong., J. of S., 442, Mar. 19, 1884.]
On motion by Mr. Harris.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution to amend the eighth
r u le ; and
The resolution was agreed to, as follows :
" Resolved, That the eighth rule of the Senate be amended by adding
thereto the following w o rd s: ‘All motions made before 2 o’clock to
proceed to the consideration of any matter shall be determined without
debate.’ ”
On motion by Mr. Harris,
The Senate proceeded ,to consider the resolutions reported from the
Committee on Rules on the 7th instant to amend the tenth rule, and
having been amended on the motion of Mr. Harris, from the Committee
on Rules, by inserting, after the word ‘‘ order,” the words “ or to proceed
to the consideration of other business.”
The resolution ns amended was agreed to, as folkiws :
“ Resolved. That the tenth rule of the Senate be amended by adding
thereto the following w ord s: ‘ And all motions to change such order
or to proceed to the consideration of other business shall be decided
without debate.’ ”
[1 st sess. 48th Cong., J. of S.( /431, Mar. 17, 1884.]
Mr. Harris, from the Committee on Rules, to which was referred the
resolution. submitted by him February 20, 1884, to amend the seventh
rule of the Senate, reported it without amendment.
The Senate proceeded, by unanimous consent, to consider the said
resolution : and
Resolved, That the Senate n<rree thereto.
Mr. Harris, from the Committee on Rules, to which was referred the
resolution submitted by him February 20. 1884. to amend the eighth
rule of the Senate, reported it without amendment.
Mr. Harris, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following
resolution for consideration :
“ Resolved. That the tenth rule o f the Senate be amended by adding
thereto the following w ords: ‘And all motions to change such order shall
he decided without debate. ’ ”
[2d sess. 48th Cong., J . of S., 359, Feb. 24, 1885.] *
Mr. Allison submitted the following order for consideration, which
was ordered to be printed :
Ordered, That during the remainder of the present session of the
Senate it shall be in order to move at any time that debate on any
amendment oi all amendments to any appropriation bill then before the
Senate be limited to five minutes for each Senator, and that no Senator
shall speak more than once on the same amendment in form or sub*
8 1 7 2 2 — 14548
stance.
debate
The
question
on
such
motion
shall he determined
without
. T2d sess. 4Sth Cong., J of S., 380, Feb. 2G. 1883.]
The Fresident pro tempore laid before the Senate the order submitted
by Mr. Allison on the 24th instant to limit debate to five minutes on
amendments to appropriation bills for the remainder of the present
session.
On motion by Mr. Plumb.
Ordered, That the further consideration thereof be postponed to to
morrow.
[1 st sess. 49th Cong., .T. of S., 303, Apr. 1, 18SG.1
Mr. Ingalls submitted the following resolution, which was referred to
the Committee on Rules :
“ R esolved, That Rule X I I I be amended by striking out the words
‘ without debate,’ in the last sentence of clause 1.”
[1 st sess. 49th Cong., .T. of S., 904. June 14, 18SG.]
Mr. Edmunds submitted the following resolution, which was referred
to the Committee on R u le s:
“ Resolved, That the last paragraph of the first clause of Rule X III
be amended so as to read as follows :
“ ‘Any motion to reconsider may be laid on the table without affecting
the question in reference to which the same is made, and if laid on the
table it shall be a final disposition of the motion.’ ”
[1st sess. 49th Cong., J. of S., 943, .Tune 21, 1SSG.1
Mr. Frye, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following reso
lution, which was considered, by unanimous consent, and agreed to :
"R esolved , That the last paragraph of clause 1, Rule X I I I , is hereby
amended by striking out the words * without debate.’
Mr. Frye, from the Committee cn Rules, to whom were referred tho
fcl'ow ing resolutions, reported adversely thereon :
The resolution submitted by Mr. Ingalls April 1, 1SSG, to amend
clause 1 of Rule X III of the Senate; and
The resolution submitted by M r. Edmunds on the 14th instant to
amend clause 1 of Rule X III of the Senate.
Ordered That they be postponed indefinitely.
[2d sess. 49th Cong.. J. of S., 387, Feb. 21, 1887.]
M r. Cameron submitted the following resolution for consideration,
which was ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That during the remainder of this session no Senator shall
.speak on any question more than once, and shall confine his remarks
to five minutes’ duration.”
[2d sess. 49th Cong., J. of S., 400, Feb. 22, 1887.]
The President pro tempore laid before the Senate the resolution
yesterday submitted by Mr. Cameron, limiting debate during the re
mainder of the session ;
When.
Mr. Edmunds raised a question of order, viz, that the resolution would
change the standings rules of the Senate, of which proper notice had
not been given, as required by Hhe fortieth r u le : and
The President pro tempore sustained the point of order.
[1st sess. 30th Cong., J. of S., 313, Feb. 14, 1888.]
M r. Blackburn submitted the following resolution, which was referred
to the Committee on R u le s:
“ Resolved, That it shall not be in order, except by unanimous consent,
for the Committee on Appropriations to reDort to the Senate for con
sideration or action any general appropriation bill without having had
such bill under consideration for a period of 10 days or more.”
[1st sess. 30th Cong., J. of S., 829, May 1G, 1888.]
Mr. Edmunds submitted the following resolution, which was referred
to the Committee on R ules;
“ Resolved, That paragraph 3 of Rule X V I be amended by adding
thereto the follo w in g:
“ Whenever any general appropriation bill originating in the House
Of Representatives shall be undei consideration, it shall be the duty of
the presiding officer to cause to be stricken out of such bill all pro
visions therein of a general legislative character other than such as
relate to the disposition of the moneys appropriated therein ; but such
order of the presiding officer shall be subject to an appeal to the Senate
ns In other cases of questions of order.”
81722— 14548
[1 st scss. 51st Cong., J. of S., 250, Apr. 23, 1S90.]
Mr. Chandler submitted the following resolution, which was referred
to the Committee on Itales and ordered to be printed :
“ Resolved, That the following be adopted as a standing rule of the
Senate :
“ * Whenever a bill or resolution reported from a committee is under
consideration the Senate may, on motion, to be acted on without debate
or dilatory motions, order that on a day, not less than six days after
the passage of the order, debate shall cease and the Senate proceed to
dispose of the bill or resolution; and when said day shall arrive, at 3
o'clock the vote shall be forthwith taken without debate or dilatory
motions upon any amendments to the bill or resolution and upon tlio
passage thereof.
“ ‘ Whenever a quorum of Senators shall not vote on any roll call the
presiding officer at the request of any Senator shall cause to be entered
upon the Journal (he names of all (lie Senators present and not voting,
and such Senators shall be deemed and taken as in attendance and
present as part of the ouorum to do business; and declaration of the
result of the voting shall be made accordingly.’ ”
List scss. 51st Cong., J. of S., 431, July 1C, 1S90.]
Mr. Allison submitted (he following resolution for consideration,
which was ordered (o be printed :
"R esolved, That during (he remainder c f the present session of Con
gress it shall be in order to move at any time that debate on any
amendment or all amendments to any appropriation bill then before the
Senate be limited to five minutes for each Senator, and that no Senator
shall speak more lhan once on the same amendment in form or sub
stance. The question on such motion shall be determined without de
bate.”
[1st sess. 51st Cong., .T. of S.. 449, Aug. 1, 1SC0.]
Jlr. Clair submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to
be printed :
“ Resolved, That the Committee on Ilules be instructed to report a
rule within four days providing for the incorporation of the previous
question or some method for limiting and closing debate in the parlia
mentary procedure of the Senate.
[1st scss. 51st Cong., J. of S., 450, Aug. 9, 1890.]
The President pro tempore laid before the Senate the resolution
yesterday submitted by Mr. Clair, as follows ;
“ Resolved, That the Committee on Kules be instructed to report a
rule within four days providing for the incorporation of the previous
question or some method for limiting and closing debate in the parlia
mentary procedure of the Senate.”
U dared. That it be referred to the Committee on Rules.
(Cong. Rec., 1st sess. 51st Cong., S 0 4 8 -8 0 5 0 .)
[1st sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 4G0, Aug. 9. 1890.]
Mr. Iloar submitted the following resolution, which was referred to
the Committee on Rules and ordered to be printed:
“ Resolved, That the Rules of the Senate be amended by adding as
fo llo w s: “ When any bill or resolution shall have been under consideration fo ra
reasonable time it shall be in order for any Senator to demand that debate
thereon be closed.
If such demand be seconded bv a majority of the
Senators present, the question shall forthwith be taken thereon wirliout
further debate, and the pendiag measure shall take precedence of all
other business whatever. If the Senate shall decide to close debate, the
question shall be put upon the pending amendments, upon amendmehts
of which notice shall then be given, and upon (he measure in its suc
cessive stages, according to the rules of the Senate, but without further
debate, except that every Senator who may desire shall be permitted
to speak upon the measure not more than once and not exceeding 30
mlnutrs.
“ A fter such demand shall have been made by any Senator, no other
motion shall be in order until (he same shall have l>een voted upon by
the Senate, unless the same shall fail to be seconded.
“ A fter the Senate shall have decided to close debate, no mot on shall
be in order but a motion to adjourn or to take a recess, when such
motion shall be seconded by a majority of the Senate.
When either
of said m ot'ons shall have been lost, or shall have Jailed of a second, it
shall not be in order to renew the same until one Senator shall have
spoken upon the pending measure or one vote on the same shall have
Intervened.”
81722— 14548
I
I! M \i
16
[1st sess. 51st Cong., .1. o f S., 463, Aug. 12, I860 1
Mr. Kdmunds submitted the following order for consideration ; which
was ordered to be printed :
Ordered, That during the consideration of House bill OHO. entitled
"A n act to reduce the revenue and equalize duties on imports, and for
other purposes," no Senator shall speak more than once, and not longer
than fivfe minutes, on cr in resnect of any one item in said bill or any
amendment proposed thereto without leave of the Senate, such leave to
be granted or denied without debate and without any other motion or
proceeding other (han such a.s relates to procuring a quorum when it
shall appear on a division, or on the yeas and navs beioa ink n . mt
a voting quorum is not present ; and until said hill shall have been
gone through with to the point of a third reading no general motion in
respect of said bill other than to take it up shall be in order.
All appeals pending the matter aforesaid shall be determined at once,
and without debate.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to Rule X L , that the foregoing order
will be offered for adoption in the Senate.
It is proposed to suspend lor the foregoing stated purpose the fol
lo w e r rules, nam ely: V, V III, IX , X , X II, X V I I I , X I X , X X I I
X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and X L
[1st sess., 51st Cong., J. of S., 483, Aug. 12, 18510.1
Mr. Blair submitted the following resolution for consideration,
which was ordered to be printed :
Resolved, That the following rule be adopted to fix the limit of de
bate, namely :
Rule — . When a proposition has been under debate two davs and not
less than four hours, which shall be determined by the pres'ding officer
without debate, it shall be in order to move the previous question,
unless the Senate shall otherwise fix the time when debate shall cease
and the vote be taken ; and in any ease arising under this rule me
Senator in charge of the measure shall have one hour in which to close
the debate.
•
During the last 14 days preceding the time fixed by law or by con
current resolution passed by the Senate for the end of the session, a
majority of the Senate may close the debate at any time, subiect to
the right of the Senator in charge of the measure : and any motion for
the previous question, or to limit debate and to fix the iime for the
vote to be taken, shall cease in one hour and be subject to the Anthony
rule.
[1 st sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 0“ 3, Aug. 12, 1800.]
Mr. Quay submitted the following resolution for consideration, which
was ordered to be printed :
“ Resol red, That during the present session of Congress the Senate
will not take up for consideration any legislative business other than
the pending bill (the tariff bill) and general appropriation bills, bills
relating to public buiidings and public lands, and Senate or concurrent
resolutions.
“ Resolved, That the consideration of all bills other than such as are
mentioned in the foregoing resolution is hereby postponed until the
session of Congress to be held on the first Monday in December, 1890.
“ R esolved, That the vote on the pending bill and all amendments
thereto shall be taken on the 30th day of August instant at 2 o’clock
p. m., the voting to continue without further debate until the considera
tion of the bill and the am enlm en’ ? is complex d.
r ist sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 465, Aug. 13, 1890.]
The President pro tempore laid before the Senate the order and
resolutions yesterday submitted, as fo llo w s:
"O r d e r by Mr. Kdmunds. to limit debate on the pending bill to re
duce the revenue and equalize duties on imports and the amendments
proposed thereto.
Resolution by Mr. Blair, to amend the rules so as to fix a limit to
debate.
Resolution bv Mr. Quay, prescribing the measure to be considered
during the remainder of the present session; and.
Ordered, That lhey be referred to the Committee on Rules.
[1st Sess. 51st Cong.. .T. of S., 471. Aug. 16, 1890.]
M r. Quay gave notice in writing, pursuant to Rule X L , that he would
offer the following efrders for adoption by the Sen ate:
Ordered, 1. That during the present session of Congress the Senate
will not take up for consideration any legislative business Other than
the pending bill (II. R. 9 4 1 6 ), conference reports, general appropriation
81722— 14548
/
17
bills, pension bills, bills relating to the public lands, to the United
States courts, to the l ’ostal Service, to apicu lture and forestry, to
public buildings, and Senate or concurrent resolutions.
Ordered. 2. That the consideration of all bills other than such as
are menlioned in the foregoing order is hereby postponed until the
session of Congress to be held on the first Monday of December. 1800.
Ordered, 3 That a vote shall be taken on the bill (11. R. 04 1 6 ) now
under consideration in the Senate and upon amendments then pend
ing, without further debate, on the 30th day of August, 1890, the vot
ing to commence at 2 o’clock p. m. on sa^d day and continue on that
and subsequent days, to the exclusion of all other business, until the
bill and pending amendments are finally disposed of.
And (hat it was proposed to modify, for the foregoing stated pur
pose, the following rules, nam ely: V II, V III, IX , X , X i i . X I X , X X I I ,
X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V and X L .
Ordered. That the notice, with the proposed orders, be printed.
l i s t sess., 51st Cong., J. of S., 472, Aug. 18, 1890.]
Mr. Quay, pursuant to notice, submitted the folio.ving resolution,
which was ordered to be printed :
Kcsolved, That the following orders be adopted for the government
of the Senate during the present session of Congress:
Ordered, 1. That during the present session of Congress the Senate
will not take up for consideration any legislative business other than
the pending bill (II. It. 0 4 1 6 ), conference reports, general appropriation
bills, pension bills, bills relating to the public lands, to the United
States courts, to the Postal Service, to agriculture and forestry, to
public buildings, and Senate or concurrent resolutions.
Ordered, 2. That the consideration of all bills other than such as are
mentioned in the foregoing order is hereby postponed until the session
of Congress to be held on the first Monday of December, 1890
Ordered, 3. That a vote shall be taken on the bill (II. R. 9416) now
tinder consideration in the Senate and upon amendments then pending,
without further debate, on the 30th day of August, 1800, the voting
to commence at 2 o’clock p. ni on said day and to continue on that and
subsequent days, to the exclusion of all other business, until the bill
and pending amendments are finally disposed of.
For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namelv, V II,
V III. IX , X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and X L , are
modified.
[ l s i sess. 51 st Co ig., J. of S., 476, Aug. 20, 1890.]
The President pro tempore laid before the Senate the resolution sub
mitted by Mr. Quay on tlie 18th instant, as follow s:
Ucsolrcd, T in t the following orders be adopted for the government
of the Senate during the present term of Conge ss :
Ordered. 1. That during the present session of Congress the Senate
will not take up for consideration any legislative business other than
the pending bill (II. It. 9 4 1 6 ), conference reports, general appropria
tion bills, pension bills, bills relating to public lands. United' States
courts, the Postal Service, to agriculture and forestry, to public build
ings, and Senate or concurrent resolutions.
Ordered, 2. That the consideration of all bills other than such as
are mentioned in the foregoing order is hereby postponed until the
session of Congress to be held on the first Monday of December, 1890.
Ordered, 3. That a vote shall be taken on the bill (II. It. 9416) now
under consideration in the Senate and upon amendments then pending,
without further debate, on the 30th day of August. 1890, the voting
to commence at 2 o’clock p. tn. on said day and to continue on that and
subsequent days, to the exclusion of all other business, until the bill
and pending amendments are finally disposed of.
For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namely. VII
V III, IX , X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and X L , are
modified.
The Senate proceeded to consider the resolution; and an amendment
having been proposed by Senator Hoar, viz : Strike out all after the
word “ resolved” and in lieu thereof insert “ that the rules of the
Senate be amended by adding the follo w in g:
“ When any bill or resolution shall have been under consideration
for a reasonable time it shall be in order for any Senator to demand
that debate (hereon be closed. It such demand be seconded by a
majority of the Senators present, the question shall forthwith be
taken thereon without further debate, and the pending measures shall
take precedence of all other busim ss whatever.
If the Senate shall
decide to close debate, the question shall be put upon the pending
amendments, upon amendments of which notice will then be given, and
81722— 14548--------2
upon the measure in its successive stages, according to the rules of
the Senate, but without further debate, except that everv Senator who
may desire shall be permitted to speak upon a measure not more than
once and rot exceeding one hour.
"A fte r such demand shall have been made by any Senator no other
motion shall be in order until the same shall have been voted upon by
the Senate, unless the same shall fail to be seconded.
“ After the Senate shall have decided to close dehale, no motion shall
be in order but a motion to adjourn or to take recess, when such motion
shall be seconded by a m ajority of the Senate.
When cither of said
motions shall have been losrt: or shall have failed of a second, it shall
not he in order to renew the same until one Senator shall have spoken
upon the pending measure or one vote upon the same shall have inter
vened.
" For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namciv, V II,
V II I. IX'. x, X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and XL, are
modified.”
On motion by Mr. Iloar lo amend the part proposed to be stricken out
by inserting, after the words “ the pending bill (II. It. 9 4 1 0 ),” the words
“ the bill to amend and supplement the election laws of the United
Stales (II. It. 1104.")),” and by adding, at the end of the resolutions, the
words “ and immediately thereafter the bill to amend and supplement
tlie election laws of the United States shall he taken up for considera
tion, and sta ll remain before the Senate every day for three days, after
the reading of the Jour.inl. to the exclusion of all other business, and on
the fourth day of September, at 2 o'clock, voting thereon, and on the
then pending amendments, shall begin and shall continue from day to
day, to the exclusion of other business, until the same arc linally dis
posed o f.”
After debate.
On motion by Mr. Spooner, that the resolution, with the proposed
amendment, he referred to the Committee on Rules,
Pending debate.
The President pro tempore announced that the hour of 12 o'clock had
arrived, and laid before the Senate the unfinished business at its ad
journment yesterday, viz, the bill (II. R. 9 4 1 0 to reduce the revenue
aud equalize duties on imports, and for other purposes.
[C o n g ressional R ecokd , 1st sess. 51st Cong., S 841-8S 49.]
[1 st scss. 51st Cong., J. of S., Sept. 23, 1890.]
The Senate preceded lo consider the resolution submitted by Mr. Quay
August 18, 1890, prescribing an order of business during the remainder
of the present session : and
Ordered, That it be postponed indefinitely.
[2d scss. 51st Cong., J. of S.. 4G, Dec. 23, 1890.]
Mr. Aldrich gave notice, in accordance with the provisions of Ruin
X L , that he would move certain amendments to the rules, which would
modify Rules V II, V III, IX , X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X X V , and
X L . and for that purpose he would hereafter submit the following
resolution :
liesolrcd. That for the remainder of this session the rules of the
Senate be amended by ading thereto the following :
" When any bill, resolution, or other question shall have been under
consideration for a reasonable time it shall be in order for any Senator
to demand that debate thereon be closed. On such demand no debate
shall be in order, and pending such demand no other motion, except
one motion to adjourn, shall be made.
If such demand be seconded
by a majority of the Senators present, the question shall forthwith be
taken thereon without debate.
If the Senate shall decide to close
debate on the bill, resolution, or other question, the measure shall take
precedence of all other business whatever, and the question shall be
put upon the amendments, if any. then pending, and upon tire measure
in its successive stages, according to the rules of the Senate, but
without further debate, except that every Senator who may desire
shall be permitted to speak upon the measure, including all amendments,
not more than once, and not exceeding 30 minutes.
“ After the Senate shall have decided to close debate ns herein pro
vide. no motion shall be in order but a motion to adjourn or to take
a recess, when such motion shall he seconded by a majority of the
Senate. When either of said motions shall have been lost, or shall
have failed of a second, it shall not be in order to renew the same
until one Senator shall have spoken upon the pending measure, or one
vote upon the same shall have intervened.
“ Pending proceedings under the foregoing rule no proceeding in
respect of a quorum shall be in order until it shall have appeared on a
81722— 14543
10
division or on the taking of the yeas and nays that a quorum is not
present and voting.
“ Tending proceedings under the foregoing rule, all questions of
•order, whether on appeal or otherwise, shall be decided without debate,
and no obstructive or dilatory motion or proceeding of any kind shall
be in order.
“ For the foregoing stated purnosrs the following rules, nnmelv, YIT,
V II I. IX , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V 1 1 I, X X X V , and X L , ari)
modified.”
Ordered, That the proposed resolution be printed.
[2d sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 51, Dee. 20, 1SC0.]
Mr. Aldrich, pursuant to notice given on the 23 d instant, submitted
the following resolution, which was ordered to be printed :
Resolved, That for the remainder of this session the rules of the
Senate be amended by adding thereto the follow ing:
“ When any bill, resolution or other question shall have been under
consideration for a considerable lime it shall be in order for any Sena
tor to demand that debate thereon be closed. On such demand' no de
bate shall he in order, and pending such demand no other motion, except
one motion to adjourn, shall he made. If such demand he seconded by a
majority of the Senators present, the question shall forthwith he taken
thereon without debate.
If the Senate shall decide to close debate on
any bill, resolution, or other question, the measure shall take precedence
o f all other business whatever, and the question shall be put upon the
amendments, if any. then pending, and upon the measure in its suc
cessive stages, according to the rules of the Senate, but without further
debate, except that every Senator who may desire shall he permitted to
speak upon the measure, including all amendments, not more than once,
and not exceeding .'10 minutes.
“ After the Senate shall have decided to close debate as herein pro?
vided, no motion shall he in order but a motion to adjourn or to take a
recess, when such motions shall be seconded by a majority of the Senate.
When cither of said motions shall have been tost or shall have failed of
a second, it shall not be in order to renew the same until one Senator
shall have spoken upon the pending measure, or one v c k c upon the same
Shall have intervene],
“ Tending proceedings under the foregoing rule, no proceeding in re
spect of the quorum shall he in order until it shall have appeared on a
division, or on the taking of the yeas and nays, that a quorum is not
present and voting.
“ Tending proceedings under the foregoing rule, all questions of order,
whether upon appeal or otherwise, shall he decided without debate, and
no obstructive or dilatory motion or proceedings of any kind shall be in
order.
“ For (he foregoing stated nurposes the following rules, naraelv, V II,
V III. IX . X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , aud X L , arO
modified.”
[2d sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 87. Jan. 20, 1801.]
On motion by Mr. Aldrich, (hat the Senate proceed to the considera
tion of the resolution submittted by him December 20, 1800, to amend
the rules so as to provide a limitation of debate under certain condi
tions, and for that nurposo to modify rules V II, V III, IX , X , X II, X I X ,
X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V . and XL.
It was determined in the affirmative:
When.
Mr. Harris raised a question of order, namely, that the notice given by
Mr. Aldrich was not sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of
It tile X L , as it did not specify the parts of the rules proposed to he
suspended, modified, or amended, and the purposes thereof, and that
the proposed rule materially modifies Ituies V and X X , and neither of
these rules are mentioned in the notice as rules proposed to be sus
pended. modified, or amended.
Tending which fthe hour of 2 o'clock having arrived, etc 1
[Congress i on ai. Record, 2d sess., 51st Cong., 15G1-15G8.]
[2d sess. 51st Cong. J. of S.. 89, Jan. 22, 1891 ]
On motion by Mr. Aldrich, that the Senate proceed to the considera
tion of the resolution submitted by him December 29. 1S90, to amend
the rules so as to provide a limitation of debate under certain condi-.
tions, and for that purpose to modify Rules V II, V III, IX , X , X I I , X I X ,
X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V . and X L .
Mr. Harris raised a question of order, namely, that the unfinished
business was the motion of Mr. Gorman, to correct the Journal o f tho
81722— 14548
20
flay before yesterday, it being a question of the highest privilege, anfl
under Rule III to be proceeded with until it is concluded.
.. t
The Vice President overruled the question of order and stated that
he did not find anv rule bearing upon the question of amending 01 ap
Proving any other Journal than that of the preceding day, and is therefore of the opinion that the motion made by the .Senator from Rhode
Island was in order, the morning hour having expired.
*
From the decision of the Chair Mr. Harris appealed to the S enate.
anOn the question, “ Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judg
ment of the S e n a te?”
proas
_______
__________
35
It was determined in (he affirmative, { \ a y s l - - - - ____________________
30
T h e ^ c a s ^ n d nays Effing desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,
{The names are omitted.]
So the decision of the Chair was sustained.
[CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, 2d SCSS. o ls t Cong., lG o 4-lfn >l.]
[2d sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 00, Jan. 22, 1891.]
The question recurring on the motion of Mr. Aldrich, that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of the resolution.
On motion by Mr. Gorman, to lay the motion on the table,
Iy C3S______ ___ _______________ _ «»0
23
. It was determined in the negative, ^ x a y s l__________________________
The“ cas°ancf nays brnffi? desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,
[The names are omitted.]
.
So the motion to lay on the table was not agieed to.
___
Mr. Ransom raided a question of order, namely, that the
take iin the resolution was not in order because the Journal of the _0tli
instant as read on the 21st shows that the resolution was taken up on
the 20th* and if tha+ he true, it then became and now is the unfinished
^ h f v i c e President overruled the question of order.
~
. .
From the decision of the Chair Mr. Ransom appealed to the S en ate,
RDOn the question, Shall the decision of the Chair stand as the judgment
of the Senate?
fYe3g__________________________
30
It was determined in the affirmative, ^ y ayS_________________________
27
T h e ^ °a s° and nays K g desired by one-fifth of the Senators present.
Those who voted in the affirmative are,
. [T h e names are omitted.]
fe V o o ?m a » « k ? d ? £ "
Mr. A .d d d , >,e put In w rttto*.
The motion having been reduced to writing, and the question lccui
ring on agreeing on the same,
(Yeas__
_____________________ 30
32
It was determined in the affirmative, |jja ys— - ____ 1 _______________
The™ eas anif nays befng desired by one-fifth of the Senators present.
[The names are omitted.]
“ s K d 1
nt t l . 1 res„T„, l f n : i. n a
'flic question being on the point of ordei laised l>v M i. H ail is on the
20th instant, namely, that the notice given by Mr. Aldrich was not
sufficiently specific to meet the requirements of Rule X I.,, as it did not
Boedfy tlie parts of the rules supposed to be suspended, modified, or
amended, and the purposes thereof; and that the proposed rule materiany modff.es Rules V and X X , and neither of these rules is men
tioned in the notice as rules proposed to be suspended, modified, or
^ T h e T i c e President overruled the question of order, and decided that
It was not well taken, as in the opinion of the Chair the purpose and
cnirit of the rule are stated in the resolution submitted by Mr. Aldrich.
From the decision of the Chair M r. Faulkner appealed to the beuate,
and
A ftpr debate
,,
A t 2 o’clock’and 35 minutes p. m., Mr, Gorman raised a question as
to the presence of a quorum ;
The Presiding Officer (M r. Manson In the chair) directed the roll to
be called,
81722— 14548
21
When
Fifty-one Senators answered to their names.
A quorum being present, and the question recurring upon th<? appeal
taken by Mr. Faulkner from the decision of the Chair,
After further debate.
On motion by Mr. Aldrich that the appeal tie on the table,
Mr. Gorman asked that the motion be put in w riting: and
The motion having been reduced to writing by Mr. Aldrich,
On the question to agree to the same,
i'Y(vn9
_ __
______
83
___ I I I _______ _ 28
It was determined in the affirmative, w ay s _
~
On motion by Mr. Gorman,
The yeas and nays being desired by one-fifth of the Senators present,
[The names are omitted.]
So the motion was not agreed to.
The question recurring on agreeing to the resolution submitted by
Mr. Aldrich,
Tending debate.
(C on g ressio n al R ecord, 2d sess. 51st Cong., 1GG4-1GS2.)
[2d sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 91, Jan. 22, 1S91.]
The Senafe resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted
by Mr. Aldrich to amend the rules so as to provide a limitation ox
debate.
An amendment having been proposed by Mr. Stewart,
On motion by Mr. Faulkner, the yeas and nays were ordered.
Tending debate.
On motion by Mr. Aldrich, at 5 o'clock and 15 minutes p. m..
The Senate tock a recess until 12 m„ Monday.
M onday , 12 o'clock m.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution submitted by
Mr. Aldrich to amend the rules so as to provide a limitation of debate;
and
The question being on the amendment proposed by Mr. Stewart,
[C o ngressional R ecord, 2d sess.. 51st Cong., 1 6 8 2 -1 7 3 8 .]
r2d sess. 51st Cong., .7. of S.. 91, Jan. 22, 1891.]
The Senate resumed the consideration of the motion submitted by Mr.
Gorman to amend the Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday, the 20th
instant, by striking out, after the motion submitted by Mr. Aldrich that
the Senate resume the consideration of the resolution to amend the rules
so as to provide a limitation of debate, the words “ It was determined
in the affirmative ” ; when.
.
By unanimous consent, the order for the yeas and nays was with
drawn ; and.
The motion to amend having teen agreed ft>,
The Journal was approved.
The Senate resumed the consideration of the question of the approval
of the Journal of the proceedings of Wednesday, the 21st in stan t; and
The Journal was approved.
[2d sess. 51st Cong., J. of S., 178, Feb. 2G, 1891.]
On motion by Mr. Allison,
The Senate lesumed. as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration
of the bill (II. R. 134G2) making appropriations for sundry civil ex
penses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1892, and
for other purposes;
When,
On motion bv Mr. Allison and by unanimous consent,
Ordered, That during the consideration of the pending bill debate on
amendments thereto shall be limited to five minutes for each Senator op
the pending question, and that no Senator shall speak more than once
on the same amendment.
Mi*. OWEN. Now, Mr. President, that record which I h a r t )
submitted without reading comes down to 1S91, when Mr.
Aldrich proposed a cloture rule for the limitation of debate.
I want to call attention to several other propositions which have
been made since that time, one by the Senator from New Hamp
shire [Mr. Ga lunger], now representing the State of New
Hampshire in this body, on October 14, 1S03, found on page 2504
of the C o n g r essio n al R ecord, Fifty-third Congress, first session,
ns follows:
When any hill or resolution reported from a standing or select com
mittee is under consideration, if a majority of the entire membership
81722— 14548
of the Senate submit a request In writing, through the Chair, that
debate close, such papers shall be referred to the Committee on Rules,
and it shall he the duty of said committee within a period not exceed
in'*.five days from the date of slid reference to report an order naming
a day and hour when a vote shall he taken, and action upon said report
shall he had without amendment or debate.
Senator G a llin g eb was very rnucli in favor of a cloture in
those days.
Senator JHoar also proposed a resolution on cloture. Nor were
they alone in that respect as distinguished leaders of the opposi
tion, hut, Senator L odge also proposed the following rule in order
to prevent the abuse of the floor of the Senate:
And it shall not be in order at any time for any Senator to read a
speech, either written or printed.
Senator Vest, o f Missouri, in 1S93 introduced the following
resolution, the most moderate form o f terminating so-called de
bate (C o n g r essio n al R ecord, p. 45. Dec. 5, 1394) :
Amendment intended to be proposed to the rules cf the Senate,
namely, add to Rule I the following section:
_
“ S ec. 2. Whenever any bill, motion, or resolution is pending before
the Senate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated
on divers da vs, amounting in all to .JO, it shall be in order for any
Senator to move that a.tim e he fixed for the taking of a vote upon such
bill motion, or resolution, and such motion shall not be amendable or
debatable, but shall be immediately p u t; and if adopted bv a majority
vote of all the Members of the Senate, the vote upon such bill, motion,
or resolution, with ail the amendments thereto which may have been
monosed at the time of such motion, shall be had at the date fixed in
such original motion without further debate or amendment, except by
unanimous consent, and during the pendency of such motion to fix a
date and also at the time fixed by the Senate for voting upon such bill,
motion, or resolution no other business of any kind or character shall
be entertained, except by unanimous consent, until such motion, bill, or
resolution shall have been finally acted upon.”
TTnn Orville II. Platt, on September 21, 1S03, introduced the
following resolution (p. 1G3G) :
Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Senate as un
finished business the presiding officer shall, upon the written request
of a maj’oritv of the Senators, fix a day and hour, and notify the Sen
ate thereof, ‘when general debate shall cease thereon, which tune shall
not he less than five days from the submission of such request, and he
shall also fix a subsequent day and hour, and notify the Senate thereof,
when the vote shall be taken on the bill or resolution and any amend
ment thereto without further debate, the time for taking the vote to
be not more than two days later than the time when general debate is
to cease, and in tbe interval between the closing of general debate and
the taking cf the vote no Senator shall speak more than five minutes
nor more than once upon the same preposition.
And, among other things, said:
The rules of the Senate, as of every legislative body, ought to facili
tate the transaction of business. 1 think that proposition will not be
denied
The rules of the Senate as they stand to-day make it lmnossible or nearly impossible, to transact business. I think that propo
sition will not be denied. We as a Senate are fast losing the respect
of the people of the United States. Me are fast being considered a body
that exists for the purpose of retarding and obstructing legislation. We
are Loin" compared in the minds of the people of this country to the
Ilouce of Lords In England, and the reason for it is that under our
rules it is impossible or nearly impossible to obtain action when there
is nnv considerable opposition to a bill here.
I think that I may Eafdy say that there is a large m ajority upon this
side cf the Senate who would favor the adoption of such a rule at the
Drcsent time.
Mr. Hoar, o f Massachusetts (1S03), submitted to the commit
tee a proposed substitute, as follows (p. 1G37):
Resolved, That the ru’es of the Senate be amended by adding the
followin'* *
“ w hen any bill or resolution shall have been under consideration
for more than one day it 6hall be in order for any Senator to demand
81722— 14548
that debate thereon be closed.
If such demand be seconded by a
majority of tbe Senators present, the question shall forthwith be taken
thereon without further debate, and the pending measure shall take
precedence of all other business whatever. If the Senate shall decide to
close debate, the question shall be put upon the pending amendments,
upon amendments of whieh notice shall then be given, and upon the
measure in its successive stages according to the rules of the Senate,
but without further debate, except that every Senator who may desire
shall be permitted to speak upon the measure not more than once and
not exceeding one hour.
“ After such demand shall have been made by any Senator no other
motion shall be in order until the same shall have been voted upon by
the Senate, unless the same shall fail to be seconded.
“ After the Senate shall have decided to close debate no motion shall
be in order, but a motion to adjourn or to take a recess, when such
motion shall be seconded by a majority of the Senate. When either of
said motions shall have been lost or shall have failed of a second it
shall not be in order to renew the same until one Senator shall have
spoken unon the pending measure or one vote upon the same shall have
intervened.
“ For the foregoing stated purpose the following rules, namelv. VII,
V III. IX , X , X I I , X I X , X X I I , X X V I I , X X V I I I , X X X V , and X L , are
modified.”
Mr. L odge, of Massachusetts, also then, as now, Senator of
the United States from Massachusetts, supported this proposal,
using the following language (p. 1637) :
It is because I believe that the moment for action has arrived that
I desire now simply to say a word expressive of my very strong belief
in the principle of the resolution offered by the Senator from Connecti
cut, Air. I’latt.
W e govern in this country in our representative bodies by voting and
debate. It is most desirable to have them both. Both are of great im
portance. But if we are to have only one, then the one which leads to
action is the more important. To vote without debating may be hasty,
may he ill considered, may be rash, but to debate and never vote is
Imbecility.
"
1 am well aware that there arg measures now pending, measures
with reference lo the tariff, which I consider more injurious to the
country than the financial measure now before us
I am aware that
there is a measure which has been rushed into the House of Representa
tives at the very moment when they are calling on us Republicans for
nonpartisanship which is partisan in the highest degree and which in
volves evils which 1 regard as infinitely worse than anything that can
arise from any economic measure, because it is a blow at human rights
and personal liberty. I know that those measures are at hand. I know
that such a rule as is now proposed will enable a majority surely to
put them through this body after due debate and will lodge in the bands
of a majority the power and the high responsibility which I believe tbe
majority ought always to have.
But. Mr. President, I do not shrink
from tbe conclusion in tbe least. If it is right now to take a step like
this, as 1 believe it is. in order to pass a measure which the whole
country is demanding, then, as it seems to me, it is right to pass it for
all measures. If it is not right for this measure, then it is not right to
pass it for any other.
I believe that the most important principle in our Government is that
the majority should rule. It is for that reason that I have done what
lay in my power to promote what 1 thought was for the protection of
elections,' because I think the majority should rule at the ballot box. 1
think equally that the majority should rule on this floor— not by violent
methods, but by proper dignified rules, such as are proposed by my
colleague and by tbe Senator from Connecticut. The country demands
action and we give them words.
For these reasons, Mr. President. I
have ventured to detain (lie Senate in order to express my most cordial
approbation of tbe principle involved in the proposed rules which have
just been referred to the committee.
Senator David B. Hill, of New York (1S93), proposed the fol
lowing amendment (p. 1639) :
Add to Rule IX the following section :
“ S ec . 2. Whenever any bill or resolution is pending before the Sen
ate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated on
divers days amounting in all to fiO days, it shall be in order for any
Senator to move to fix a date for the taking of a vote upon such bill or
81722— 14543
24
resolution, and such motion shall not be amended or debatable; and if
nassed bv a majority of all the Senators elected the vote upon such bill
^c ^ o lv ftio D ?w ith all the amendments thereto which may be pending
at the time of such motion, shall be immediately had without further
debate or amendment, exce.pt by unanimous consent.
Only last Congress. April G, 1911, the distinguished Senator
from New York. Mr. R oot, introduced the following resolution:
Resolved That the Committee cn Rules be, and it is hereby, instructed
to report for the consideration of the Senate a rule or rules to se.care
more effective control by the Senate over its procedure, and especially
over its procedure upon conference reports and upon bills which have
been passed bv the House ana have been favorably reported in the Sen
ate.
(C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord , vol. 47, pt. 1, p. 1 0 1.)
And Senator L odge argued very strongly in fa v o r o f a cloture.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr OWEN. I yield to the Seu«tor from Colorado.
Mr. THOMAS. If the Senator will turn to pages 1637 and
1638 of the same volume that he holds in his hands, he will
find, if my memory serves me right, a resolution upon the sub
ject offered by Mr. L odge, or else a speech in favor of a resolution previously offered by Senator Platt a speech which
contains a great deal of matter which is pertinent to the present
8^Mn OWEN. Senator Platt, on the 20th of September, 1S93,
proposed the following resolution:
Resolved, That Rule IX
of the Senate be amended by adding the
whenever anv bill or resolution Is pending before the Senate
as unflni'sheif business the Presiding Officer shall, upon the written rcouest of a majority of the Senators, fix a day and horn anil notify
the Senate thereof when general debate shall cease thereon, which time
shall not be less than five days from the submission request, and he
shall also fix a subsequent day and hour, and notify the Senate theieof,
when the vote shall be taken on the bill or resolution and any amend
ment thereto without further debate; the time for taking the vote to
be not more than two days later than the time when general debate is
to cease, and in the interval between the closing of general debate and
the taking of the vote no Senator shall speak more than uve minutes
or more than once upon the same proposition.
Senator Platt argued strongly for this; nor was he alone.
Senator L odge, on page 2536, made an argument in favor of
cloture, to this effect:
1 believe, of course, that the proper way is to go straight at it and
to put in the hands of the majority of the Senate the power to close
debate and the power to take a vote after due debate.
_
.
But as it appears that there is not a majority in the Senate for
closure, as no action has been taken by the Committee on Rules in
that direction, and as there appears to be a prejudice against any
method of bringing the Senate to a vote because it is in conflict with
Senate traditions, I have ventured to offer two amendments which I
think will at least tend to prevent obstruction, although they are not as
thorough and complete as they ought to be.
'
This question 01 obstruction has culminated in the great representative bodies of the English-speaking people within the last few years.
It has ljeen met and disposed of in the House of Commons by the
closure rules, which recently have been applied in practice at every
gta'o’e of the home-rule bill.
It has been met and disposed of in the
House of Representatives.
Those two great representative bodies of
the English-speaking people, owing to reforms which have been car
ried out within the last half dozen years, are able to-day to transact
business, to transact it according to the will of the m ajority, and
thereby to place upon the majority the public responsibility which they
ought to bear.
81722— 14548
25
Anti more to like effect from tlie distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts.
The Senator from Massachusetts was not content with ex
pressing himself in that xespect in the United States Senate,
but he wrote a very interesting article for the North American
Review, in the issue of November, 1S93, page 523, in which
he sets up with great force the importance of allowing a ma
jority to rule, in which he advocates the Itced rules in the
House of Representatives, which since that time have been,
wisely enough, adopted by every succeeding Congress, whether
Democratic or Republican, because the common sense of a
parliament requires that the majority shall not be throttled
by the minority, for the simple reason the majority must be
permitted to exercise the functions for which they are chosen
by the American people, if representative government is to
stand. 1 shall ask to put this short article by Mr. L odge as an
addendum to my remarks, if there is no objection. It is a
very short one.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. L odge, after arguing strenuously for tho
cloture-----Mr. GALLINGER. Will the Senator give the date o f that
article?
Mr. OWEN. November, 1S93.
After arguing strenuously for the cloture, Mr. Lodge points
out the practice of the previous question, and says:
But the essence of a system of courtesy is that it should be tho
same at dll points. The two great rights in our representative bodies
are voting and debate.
If the courtesy of unlimited debate is granted,
it must carry with it the reciprocal courtesy of permitting a vote after
due discussion.
If this is not the case, the system is impossible. Of
the two liahts, moreover, that of voting is the higher and more im
portant. W e ought to have both, and debate certainly in ample meas
u re : hut if we are forced to choose between them, the right of action
must prevail over tire right of discussion.
To vote without debating
is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.
I commend the language of the Senator from Massachusetts
to*tlie Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GALLINGER. The Senator has quoted an amendment
to the rules which I wrote shortly after coming into this body,
which was sent to the Committee on Rules and never came out
of that committee. I did hold to that view at that time; but
I listened to a wonderful speech from Senator Turpie, of Indi
ana, about that time in opposition to cloture, which did very
much toward converting me to the opposite view.
The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. L odge ] came into the
Senate fresh from the House in 1S93, imbued with the idea
that the Itecd rules were the acme of perfection, and he advo
cated that practice. It was during a famous debate on the
repeal o f the silver-purchase clause in the law that was then
on the statute books, and our Democratic friends were filibus
tering against it with great earnestness and with a good deal of
success.
81722— 14548
20
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President-----Tiie PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Colorado?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. THOMAS. * I simply wish to remind the Senator from
New Hampshire that that filibuster was not a party filibuster.
There were a great many Senators upon the Republican side
engaged in it. One was from my State, who afterwards took
his seat upon this side. It was not a Democratic filibuster.
Mr. GALLINGER. There were four or five so-called Repub
licans at that time-----Mr. THOMAS. Oh, there were more than that. Mr. Presi
dent. and there was nothing “ so called” about them. They
were Republicans.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for
permitting me the opportunity of saying that when I first came
here I did entertain the view the Senator has attributed to
me; but I listened very attentively to the views o f Senators,
many of whom had been here a iong time, and I found that they
were almost unanimously against that procedure. They assured
me that no harm had ever come from it, and I changed my
views, and I have entertained those changed views from that
dav to the present time.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, against the views of Mr. Turpie,
the Senator referred to by the Senator from New Hampshire,
I wish to quote the language of another distinguished Senator
of that date on the Democratic side—Senator W hite,,now the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He
said, on October 13. 1S03 (C o n o r tssio n a l R ecord, p. 2477),
in commenting on the filibuster of that date:
I Wt
Sir we have for davs and days in this great body, upon which the
eves of the whole world have been turned in the past as the roost
exalted and the most dignified and the roost responsible legislative
bodv on the face of God's earth, witnessed scenes in it which, in my
judgment. have made it an object of contempt to every civilized man
and to every honest judgment. So far as I am concerned,I hope that
this action to-night
will initiate the first step to reach a point in
which this great bodv. gathering its self-respect about it. will so deport
itself as to save at least some of the honor and some of the character
which has been its ornament for so many years. W hile It is sought to
drag it down in the mire and dust. I hope it will so deport itself as to
vindicate its duty. If gentlemen sit in this room and call attention to
the absence of a quorum, and then remain silent on the roll called
to ascertain whether there is a quorum, I hope there will be firmness
and manhood here to visit that punishment which, in my judgment,
such conduct deserves.
If it be done. then, sir, those who use such
methods will seek some other field for their display than this. If it be
not done, the self-respect of this body is, in my judgment, gone.
Senator David B. Hill likewise objected very strongly to the
abuse of the timeof the Senate by the filibuster, and he was
not alone in that.
I call attention to the proposal of Senator
Hill in 1S93. page 1G39:
Add to Rule IX the following section:
“ S ec . 2. Whenever any hill or resolution is pending before the Sen
ate as unfinished business and the same shall have been debated on
divers days amounting in all to .10 days, it shall be in order for any
Senator to move to fix a date for the taking of a vote upon such bill or
resolution, and such motion shall not be amended or debatable; and if
passed by a majority of all the Senators elected the vote upon such hill
or resolution, with all the amendments thereto which may be pending
at the time of such motion, shall he immediately had without further
debate or amendment, except by unanimous consent.”
81722— 14548
27
Nor does this by any means end the matter on the two sides
of the Chamber. There are many distinguished Senators who,
in the course of the debates on these questions, expressed simi
lar sentiments. I shall not encumber the R ecord with making
quotations from them, except to show that the leaders on both
sides of this Chamber, as the exigencies seemed to require, have
hot hesitated to urge amendment of the rules to provide for a
previous question after reasonable debate has been had.
> Mx-. WEEKS. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Docs the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Massachusetts?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. WEEKS. I wish to ask the Senator if any Senator has
over made that contention when he was in the minority party
of the Senate? Has it not always been when he was in the
majority?
Mr. OWEN. Oh, I think so, very generally. That does not
change the force of the opinions and arguments cited, however.
If you gentlemen, through your leadership on that side, declare
vehemently in favor of the virtue of a cloture when you are in
the majority, and if the gentlemen on this side declare
vigorously in favor of a cloture when they are in the
majority, does it not argue that both sides have committed them
selves earnestly to the reasonable, common-sense rule that the
majority shall command this Chamber? And if both sides have
committed themselves, with what face will you deny the reason
Of the rule which you have yourselves advocated with such force
and with such earnestness? Do you wish to argue that both
sides were fraudulently making the argument and that neither
side is entitled to the respect of honest men. and that their
opinions are worthless because merely indicating a desire for
partisan advantage?
If this be true, let us follow the rule of all other great par
liamentary bodies—of Great Ltritain, of France, of Germany, of
Austria, of Italy, of Switzerland, of Hungary, of Spain, of Den
mark—of the great States of our own Union, who do not permit
filibuster or the rule of the minority over the majority.
Mr. FLETCHER. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Florida?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. FLETCHER. May I ask the Senator if _ie does not think
that \.hen the rule was originally adopted providing that a
Senator could speak once in one day upon a question in debate, it
was contemplated that the speech would be confined to the ques
tion pending and then before the Senate?
Mr. OWEN. Oh, absolutely. No one imagined in the early
days of the Senate that the minority would have the shameless
impudence to try to rule the majority.
Mr. FLETCHER. And does not the Senator think this
abuse has grown up not because the rule ever contemplated
such abuse, but rather in spite of it, and that the abuse consists
largely in the fact that nowadays the so-called debate or dis
cussion or speech is not confined at all to the question before
the Senate, but all latitude is given for the discussion of any
old subject at any old time, whether it is really before the
Senate or not? Does not the Senator think that is really the
81722— 1454S
abuse, and that that was never contemplated by the Senate
when the rules were originally adopted?
Mr OWEN
That is quite true. When the rules of the
Senate were adopted in 1789 they had the “ previous question
coming from the Continental Congress, which had the previous
question coming from the Parliament of Great Britain, which
had the previous question in 1690. The Senate maintained the
previous question for 17 years. It was then a small body of
verv courteous men, only 34 in number, and they dropped the
previous question as not needed in so small a body o f such
very courteous men. They had only used it three times n 17
years and as a matter o f courtesy they merely omitted the
previous question from the printed rules. It still was permis
sible under the general parliamentary law. They never imag
ined the Senator from Ohio speaking for 9 hours, the Senator
from California speaking for long hours on the shipping bill,
but confining his rambling observations to a dissertation on
Christian science, followed by the Senator from Utah by a
13-hour speech, and speech after speech consuming d a js foi t io
shameless purpose of killing time and killing majority rule and
defeating popular government.
_
Mr. GALLING Ell. Mr. President, will the Senator permit
me to interrupt him further?
.
,
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. GALLINGER. I will suggest to the Senator from
Florida that if he should enforce that rule it would prevent
the Senator from Oklahoma from making his very interesting
discussion to-day.
.
_
Mr. OWEN. Oh, that may be true, Mr. President. I agree
with the Senator from New Hampshire that a speech on the
cloture would not be very much in point on the pending ques
tion of the shipping bill, but-----Mr FLETCHER. But that is the pending question.
Mr! OWEN. Yes; it is so far in point that the Senator from
Missouri [Mr. R eed ] has moved a temporary, particular, and
special cloture for the purpose of bringing to a conclusion the
endless filibuster on that side of the Chamber and getting a
vote on the shipping bill. I am not far afield in discussing
cloture in this way, for cloture is needed to get the vote on
the shipping bill.
Mr. FLETCHER. That is the precise question.
Mr. OWEN. I think I am really much more in point than tho
Senator from New Hampshire would indicate.
Mr President, I wish to submit for the R ecord the practice
of every State in the Union. I have in my hand a compilation
o f the rules on the “ previous question.” of the various States
comprising this Republic, and I submit them to show that the
common sense of the people of this Republic, the common sense
moving the legislatures of the various States, has spoken in
regard to this matter; and only when they have had no trouble
from an unfair filibuster is there the absence o f a rule o f clo
ture; that is, where the rule of courtesy carries with it the
reciprocal courtesy of permitting the majority to vote after
reasonable debate has been had.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Inser
tion of the statement in the R ecord?
81722— 14548
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President, before agreeing to the in
sertion I will ask the Senator, with his permission, if he has
given the rules of the State senates as well as the houses of
representatives?
Mr. OWEN. Yes; both are given—both the senate and house,
wherever it occurs. I had it compiled by the legislative refer
ence division of the Library of Congress for the use of the
Senate.
Mr. GALLINGER. I will say to the Senator that I chance to
know that we have not a previous question in the State Senate
of New Hampshire.
Mr. OWEN. In the State Senate of New Hampshire, I take it,
the Senator will not allege that any filibusters have been carried
on so as to defeat the will of the majority. If so, I shall be glad
to have the Senator say that that is a fact.
Mr. GALLINGER. I think probably the Senator is correct.
We do not have before the Legislature of New Hampshire the
great questions that we have before this body.
Mr. OWEN. And therefore there is no need for the rule of
Cloture, because your senate does not violate the courtesy of
freedom of debate by a filibuster-----Mr. GALLINGER. I do not know that there has been any
prolonged filibuster, but I do know that unlimited debate is
allowed under the rules. That is all I know about it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER
Is there objection to the in
sertion in the R ecord of the matter referred to by the Senator
from Oklahoma? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The matter referred to is as follows:
P r e v io u s
Q u e s t io n
in
S tate
L e g is l a t u r e s .
ALABAMA.
Senate.
20 The previous question shall be in the following form : u Shall the
main question be now p u t ? "
If demanded by a vote of a majority of
the members present, its effect shall be to cut off all debate and bring
the house to a direct v o te ; first, upon Ihe pending amendments, if there
are anv in their order, and then on the main question, but the mover
of the 'miestion or the chairman of the committee having charge o f the
bill or resolution shall have; the right to close the debate after the call
of the previous question has been sustained for not more than 15
minutes, (House rules, 1915, p. 8.)
ARIZONA.
Senate.
go There shall he a motion for the previous question, which being
ordered by a majority of senators voting, if a quorum be present, shall
have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote
upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked
and ordered
The previous question may be asked and ordered upon a
single motion, a series of motions allowable under the rules, or an
amendment or amendments, or may he made to embrace all authorized
motions or amendments and include the bill to its nassage or rejection.
It shall he in order, pending the motion for, or after the previous question
Khali have been ordered on its passage, for the president to entertain
nrul submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions, to a
Standing or select committee. (Senate journal, 1912. p. 7 5 .)
House.
Information not available.
ARKANSAS,
Senate.
19 The previous question shall not be moved by less than three
members, and shall he stated in these words, to w i t : “ Shall the main
61722— 14548
question be now p u t ? ” If tbc previous question is lost the main m e *
ticn shall not thereby be postponed but the senate shall proceed « it h
the consideration of the same. If the previous question is carried, the
original mover of the main question, or if the bill or resohit on on inated in the other house, then the chairman of the committee u n o i t .n ,
the same shall have the right to close the debate and be iumtwlI to -W
m inutes; and should the previous question be ordered on a subject dchatable before the same has been debated, the friends and the oppo
nents of the measure shall have 30 minutes on either side in which to
debate the question if desired. (Senate journal, 1001, p. o o .)
House.
T>3. When any debatable question is before the house any member
mav move the previous question, hut it shall he seconded by ” t least fi e
members whether that question (called the main question) shall now be
put.
If it passes in the affirmative, then the main
's
put immediately, and no member shall debate it furthei. either to add to
or a lte r : Provided further, When the previous question shall have
been adopted the mover of the main question or chairman of the com
mitteo shall have the privilege of ciomng the debate and he limited to
“ nc-hSlf ho u r: Provided further, When the previous question has
been ordered on a debatable proposition which has not been debated l.»
minutes in the n e g a t e shall he allowed the friends and opponents^of
the proposition each before putting the main question. (IIous j
>
1013, p. 28.)
CALIFORNIA.
Senate.
r>7 The nrevious question shall be put in the following form .
Shall
the q u T s tU be nowq p u t V
It sh a ll‘ only be admitted.when' demaruied
hv a majority of the senators present upon a division . and its effect
shall be to put an end to all debate, except that the author of the lull
or the amendment shall have the right to ciose and the snbjcct undei
discussion shall thereupon he immediately put to a vote. On a motion
for the previous question prior to a vote being taken by the senate a
call of the senate shall be in order.
(L ist of members and rules, 1013,
p'
A ssem bly.
dr, ThP nrevious oucstion sliall lie in this form ;
Shall tlie main
n a t i o n he' now p u t ? ' ' A n d its effect, when sustained by a majority
2" the members present, shall he to put an end to all debate and bring
the House to a vote on the question or questions before it.
(List of
members and rules, 1913, p. 110.)
COLORADO.
Senate.
X , 2. Debate may he closed at any time not less than
£ °?1
the adoption of a motion to that effect, and upon a three-fifths vote
the members elect an hour may he fixed for a vote upon the pending
measure
On either of these motions not more than 10 minutes slmli
he allowed for debate, and no senator shall speak more than 3 minutes ,
and no other motion shall he entertained until the m
° ° t 0 hc .0,seh
hate or to fix an hour for the vote on the pending question shall have
been determined.
(Senate Journal, 1 0 0 1, p. 101.)
House.
X X V I 1 When there shall be a motion for the previous question,
which being ordered by a majority of members present, if a quorum,
It shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the house to a
direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has
been asked or ordered. The previous question may be asked and ordered
11non a single motion, a series of motions, allowable under the rules, or
an amendment or amendments, or may he made to embrace all author
ized motions and amendments, and a motion to lay upon the table shall
he in order on the second or third reading of the hill.
<> a call of the house shall nut be in order after the previous ques
tion is ordered unless it shall appear upon the actual count by the
sneaker that a quorum is not present.
1 3 \11 incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made
fo r 'th e previous question, and pending such motion, shall be decided,
whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(House Journal, 1JU7,
p. 215.)
81722— 14548
31
CONNECTICUT.
Senate.
In the senate of 1011 tlie previous question was called for. and the
point was raised that the previous question does not prevail in the
sen ate; the president pro tempore ( I ’eck) ruled the point well taken.
(S. J., 1911, p. 5 5 5 ; register and manual, 1914, p. 133.)
House.
33. When a question is under debate no motion shall be received
except—
1. To adjourn.
2. To lav on the table.
3. For the previous question.
4. To postpone indefinitely.
r>. To c ose the debate at a specified time.
G. To postpone to a time certain.
7. To commit or recommit.
8. To amend.
9. To continue to the next general assembly.
Which several motions shall have precedence in the order in which
they stand arranged in this rule, and no motion to lav on the table,
commit, or recommit, to continue to next general assembly, or to post
pone indefinitely, having been once decided, shall be again allowed
at the same sitting and at the same stage of the bill or subject
matter. (Register and manual. 1914, p. 113;)
DELAWARE.
Senate.
5. All motions shall he subject to debate, except motions to adjourn,
to lay on the table, and for the previous question.
25. When a question is under debate no motion shall be received but
to adjourn, to lay on the table, tor the previous question to postpone
to a certain day. to commit, to amend, and to postpone indefinitely,
which several motions shall have precedence in the order in which
they are arranged.
(Senate rules, 1915, pp. 30, 34.)
House.
35. A motion for the previous question shall not be entertained, ex
cept at the request of five members rising for that purpose, and shall
be determined without debate; but when the previous question has
been called and sustained it shall not cut off any pending amendment.
The vote shall be taken, without debate, first on the amendments in
their order and then on the main question. (House rules, 1915, pp.
4 3 -4 4 .)
FLO RID A.
Senate.
No rule.
House.
12. lie shall put the previous question in the following form : “ Shall
the main question be now p u t?” And all debate on the main question
and pending amendments shall be suspended, except that the introducer
of a bill, resolution, or motion shall, if he so desire, be allowed five
minutes to discuss the same, or he may divide his time with or may
waive his right in favor of some other one member before the previous
question is crdeied.
After the adoption of the previous question the
sense of the house of representatives shall forthwith be taken on
pending amendments in their regular order and then put upon the
main question.
13. On the previous question there shall be no debate.
(House
journal, 1911, p. 259.)
GEORGIA.
S enate.
50. The motion for the previous question shall be decided without
debate and shall take precedence of all other motions except mot'ons
“ to adjourn ” or “ to lay on the table," and when it is moved, the first
question shall be, “ Shall the call for the previous question be sus
ta in e d ?”
If this be decided by a majority vote in the affirmative, the
motion “ to adjourn ” or “ to lay on the table ” can still be made, but
they must be mode before the next question, to wit, “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ” is decided in the mftirmative; and after said last
question is affirmatively decided by a majority vote said motions will
be out of order, and the Senate can not adjourn until the previous
question is exhausted or the regular hour of adjournment arrives.
51. When the previous question lias been ordered, the Senate shall
then proceed to act on the main question without debate, except that
81722— 14548
4
32
hnfnrr' the main ouestian is put 20 minutes shall be allowed to the
committee whose report of the bill or other measure is under consldoiatfon^ to close debate. When the report of the committee is adverse to
the oassa °e of the bill or other measure, the Introducer of the bill shall
le avowed °0 minutes, before the time allowed to the committee for
closing the debate
The chairman of the committee, or the introducer
of'the* bill or other measure, may yioid the floor to such senators as
he may indicate for the time, or any part of it, allowed under this rule.
52.
'After the main question is ordered any senator may call foi a
division of the senate in taking the vote, or may call for the
navs • hut on ail questions on which the yeas and nays are called the
assent of one-fifth of the number present shall he necessary to sustain
the call, and when such rail is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be
entered'on
order that the ” main question be now put ” is
to bring the senate to a vote on pending questions in the order in which
t b q4 S Aftcr'tlie*main'qliestion has been ordered no motion to reconsider
shall’ he in order until after the vote on the main question is taken and
announced.^ cascs &f C0DtCJ;ted election, where there is a majority and a
minority report from the committee on privileges and elections, if the
nrevious question is ordered, there shall he 20 minutes allowed .to the
member of said committee whose name is first signed to said minor.ty
report or to such member or members as he may indicate, foi the
time so allowed, or any part of it, before the 20 minutes allowed to
the chairman submitting the majority report.
.
56- The previous question may be called and ordered upon n s n j e
mot on or an amendment, or it trav be made to embrace all autlioi i/ed
motions or amendments and include the entire hill to its passage o>
1
L
11:
3!
I III
f! !
>i .
rejection
of fhe senatP shall not be in order after the previous
question is ordered, unless it shall appear upon an actual count by the
president that a quorum is not present.
,
P r,o AA incidental questions of order arising after a mot.on is made
cm- the previous question, and pend ng such motion, sha’ l he decided,
w hetherPon appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual,
1 0 6 0 -1 9 0 1 , pp. 3 0 -3 2 .)
t i , p motion for the previous question shall be decided without
..hall take precedence of all ether motions except motions
ndiourn ” or • 'to lay on the table.” and when it is moved the
chnll he ‘ Shall the motion for the previous question he sus
tained®
f ibis be decided by a majority vote in the affirmative, the
mitinn' “ to adiourn ” or " to lay on the table
can still be made, but
they must be made before the next question, to wit. •'Shall the main
question he cow put ” is decided in the affirmative, and after said Inst
question is affirmatively decided, by a majority vote, said motion will
lie out of order, and t*e House can not adiourn until the previous ques
tion is exhausted or the regular hour of adjournment arrives.
ti0JV. when "the previous question has been ordered the House shall
nmcppd to act on the main question without debate, excent that before
fh T m a in question is put 20 minutes shall be allowed to the committee
who^e report of the bill or other measure is under consideration to
rinse t i e debate. Where the report of the committee is adverse to the
passage of the bill or other measure the introducer of the bill shall
Re nlfowed V minutes before the time allowed to the committee for
c lc s in ° "h e debate. The chairman of the committee pr the introducer
of the bill or other measure may yield the floor to such Members as he
mav indicate for tne time, or any part of it allowed under this rule
This rule shall not he construed to allow the 20 minutes above referred
to to be used hut once on any bill or measure, and then on the final
passage rf the bill or measure. .
,
After the main question is ordered, any Member may call for
n division of the House in taking the vote, or may call for the yeas
“ j n a vs- if the call for the yeas and nays is sustained by one-fi.th
of the Members voting, the vote shall be taken by the yeas and nays
and so entered on the Journal.
,
. „ ,
f.7 T ie effect of the order that the “ main question he now put. is
to bring the House to a vote on pending questions in the order In which
thov stood before it was moved.
PR After the main question*bas been ordered, no motion to reconsider
shall lie in order until after the vote on the main question is taken
n
an6 9 anin°aiICcases where a minority report has been submitted on any
question, if the previous question is ordered, there shall be *.0 minutes
81722— 14543
l ■>.
hi
33
allowed to the Member "whose name is first signed to said minority
report, or to such Member or Members as he may indicate, for the time
so allowed, or any part of it, before the 20 minutes allowed to the
chairman submitting the majority report.
70. The previous question may be called and ordered upon a single
motion or an amendment, or it may be made to embrace all authorized
motions or amendments and include the enlire bill to its passage or
rejection.
71. A cull of the House shall not be in order after the previous
question is ordered, unless it shall appear upon an actual count by
the Speaker that a quorum is not present.
72. All incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made
for the previous question, and pending such motion, shall he decided,
whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual
1900 -1001, pp. 1 0 0 -1 0 8 .)
IDAHO.
Senate,
IV, 2. When a question is under debate the president shall receive
no motion but—
To adjourn.
To take a recess.
To proceed to the consideration of the special order.
To lay on the table.
The previous question.
To close debate at a special lime.
To postpone to a certain day.
To commit.
To amend or postpone indefinitely.
And they shall take precedence in the order named.
(Rules, 1915.*
pp. 2 1 -2 2 .)
House.
14. Upon the previous question being ordered by a majority of the
members present, if a quorum, the effect shall be to cut off debate and
bring the house to a direct vote upon the pending question. It shall
be in order, pending the motion for or after the previous question shall
have been ordered, for the speaker to entertain and submit a motion
to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or select com
mittee. which motion shall be decided without debate.
15. When the previous question is decided in the negative, it shall
leave the main question under debate for the residue of the sitting,
unless sooner disposed of.
1G. All incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made
for the previous question, during the pending of such motion or after
the house shall have determined that the main question shall he put,
shall be decided, whether an appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Rules, 1915, pp. 3 -4 .)
♦
ILLINOIS.
Senate.
02. The previous question shall be stated in this fo r m : “ Shall the
main question be now put ? ” and, until it is decided, shall preclude all
amendments or debate.
When it is decided that the main question
shall now be put, the main question shall be considered as still remain
ing under debate.
03. The effect of the main question being ordered shall be to put an
end to all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote, first upon all
amendments reported or pending, in the inverse order in which they arc
offered. After the motion for the previous question has prevailed, it
Bliall not be in order to move for a call of the senate unless it shall
appear by the yeas and nays as taken on the main question that no
quorum is present, or to move to adjourn, prior to a decision on the
main question.
(Senate journal, 1911, p. 13.)
House.
GO. The previous question shall be put in this form : “ Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ” and until it is decided shall preclude all
amendments or debate. When it is decided that the main question
shall not now he put. the main question shall he considered as still
remaining under debate.
The effect of the main question being ordered shall be to put an
end to all debate and bring the house to a direct vote, first, upon all
amendments reported or pending in the inverse order in which they
are offered. After the motion for the previous question has prevailed it
shall not be in order to move for a call of the house unless it shall
81722— 14548------ 3
34
appear by yeas and nays, as taken on the main question, that no
quorum is present, or to move to adjourn prior to a decision of the
main question: Provided, If a motion to postpone is ponding the only
effect of the previous question shall be to bring the House to a voto
upon such motion. (House Journal, 1913, p. 318.)
INDIANA.
Senate
18. The previous question shall be put in this fo r m : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ” Until it is decided it shall preclude all debate
and the introduction of all further amendments. The previous question
having been ordered, the main question shall be the first question in
order, and its effect shall be to put an end to all debate and bring
the senate to a direct vote on the subsidiary questions then pending in
their order, and then on the main question.
When operating under
the previous question there shall be no debate or explanation of votes.
(Legislative Manual for 1913, p. G7.)
House.
GO. The previous question shall be put in this fo r m : “ Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ”
It shall only be admitted when de
manded by a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be
to put an' end to all debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon
a motion to commit if such motion shall have been made, and if this
motion doe3 not prevail, then upon amendments reported by a com
mittee, if any, then upon pending amendments, and then upon the
main question. But its only effect, if a motion to postpone is pending,
shall be to bring the house to a vote upon such motion.
On the
previous question there shall be no debate. All incidental questions of
order arising after a motion is made for the previous question, and,
pending such motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise,
without debate.
And after a demand for the previous question has
been seconded by the house no motion shall be entertained to excuse
a member from voting.
The ordering of the previous question shall
not prevent a member from explaining his vote, but no member under
this rule shall be permitted more than one minute for that purpose.
(Legislative Manual for 1913, p. 82.)
IOWA.
Senate.
11. A motion to adjourn, to lay on the table, and for the previous
question shall be decided without debate, and all incidental questions
of order arising after a motion is made for the previous question, and
pending such motion, shall be decided— whether an appeal or other
wise— without debate.
12. The previous question shall be in this form : “ Shall the main
question be ffow p u t ? ” It shall only be admitted when demanded by a
majority of the members present, and its effect shall be to put an end
to all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote upon pending amend
ments and then upon the main question, unless otherwise indicated by
the motion and ordered by the senate, except that the member in charge
of the measure under consideration shall have 10 minutes in which to
close the discussion immediately before the vote is taken upon the main
question.
If the previous question is decided in the negative, the
senate shall proceed with the matter before it the same as though the
previous question had not been moved.
(Official Register. 1911—12,
p. 179.)
n ou sc.
20. The previous question shall always be put in this form : “ Shall
the main question be now p u t ? ”
It shall only be admitted when de
manded by a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be
to put an end to all debate and to bring the house to a direct vote upon
amendments and then upon the main question, unless otherwise indi
cated by the motion and ordered by the house, except that the member
in charge of the measure under consideration shall have 10 minutes in
which to close the discussion before the vote is taken. On a motion for
the previous question, and prior to seconding the same, a call of the
house shall be in order; but after such motion shall have been adopted
no call shall be in order prior to the decision of the main question. If
the previous question is decided in the negative, the house shall proceed
with the matter before it the same as though the previous question had
not been moved.
27. Motions to lay on the table, to adjourn, and for the previous
question shall be decided without debate.
(Official Register, 1 9 1 1 -1 2 ,
p. 185.)
81722— 14548
as
KANSAS.
Scualc.
15. Any five senators shall have the right to demand the previous
question. The previous question shall be as follo w s: “ Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ’’ and unlil it is decided shall preclude all
amendments or debate.
When on faking the previous question the
senate shall decide that the main question shall not be put. the main
question shall be considered as still remaining under debate. The main
question shall be on the passage of the bill, resolution, or other matter
under consideration ; but when amendments are pending the question
shall first he taken upon such amendments in their order: and when
amendments have been adopted in committee of the whole and not
acted on in the senate, the questicn shall he taken upon such amend*
men Is In like order, and without further debate or amendment.
But
the previous question can be moved on a pending amendment, and, if
adopted, debate is closed on the amendment only : and after the amend
ment is voted on the main question shall a train be open to debate and
amendments. In this case the question shall be. “ Shall the vote now
be taken on the pending am endm ent?”
(Senate rules, 1913, 1st cd.,
P. 5.)
House.
51. The “ previous question ” shall be as follows : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ” and until it is decided shall preclude all amend
ment or debate.
When, on taking the previous question, the house
shall decide that the main question shall not now be put, the main
question shall be considered as still remaining under debate. The main
question shall be on the passage of the bill, resolution, or other matter
under consideration; but when amendments are pending, the question
shall first be taken upon such amendments in their order: and when
amendments have been adopted by the committee of the whole and not
acted on in the house, the question shall he taken upon such amend
ments in like order, and without further debate or amendment. (House
Rules, 1913, p. 1G.)
KENTUCKY.
Senate.
55. When the “ previous question ” has been moved, seconded, and
adopted a vote shall be immediately taken upon the pending measure
and such pending amendments as are in order.
The effect of tile "p re v io u s question ” shall therefore be to put an
end to all debate; to prevent the offering of additional amendments, and
fo bring the senate to an immediate vote upon the measure as afore
said.
The previous question may be ordered by a majority of the senators
voting on that question. On the call of the roll no senator shall be
allowed to speak more than three minutes to explain bis vote and shall
not speak at ah if the question is not a debatable question. After the
previous question has been ordered a senator, whose bill or amendment
or motion— if debatable— is pending, may speak not exceeding 10 min
utes-thereon, and one senator of the opposition may speak not exceeding
10 minutes.
(Directory, 1914, p. 244.)
House.
■ 24. The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from
the Chair shall be, "S h a ll the main question be now p u t ? ” And if
the nays prevail, the main question shall not then he put. The effect
of the previous question shall be to put an end to all debate except on
the final passage of the measure under consideration : then the op
ponents of the measure shall have 10 minutes to debate the proposi
tion and the proposer of the measure shall be limited to 10 minutes to
close the debate, unless his time be extended by consent of the house,
and bring the house to a direct vote on amendments proposed by a
committee, if a n y ; then on pending amendments and all amendments
which have been read for information of the house bv the clerk shall be
regarded as pending am endm ents; and then upon the main question
(Directory, 1914, p. 253.)
LOUISIANA,
Information not available.
MAINE,
Senate.
No rule.
House.
31. When motion for the previous question is made the consent of
one third of the members present shall he necessary to authorize the
speaker to entertain it.
No debate shall bo allowed until the matter
81722— 14543
36
of consent Is determined. The previous question shall be submitted In
the following w ords: “ Shall the main question be put n o w ?"
No
member shall speak more than live minutes on the motion for the pre
vious question, and while that question is pending a motion to lay on
the table shall not be decided without debate. A call for the yeas and
nays or for division o f a question shall be In order after the main
question has been ordered to be put.
After the adoption of the pre
vious question the vote shall be taken forthwith upon amendments, and
then upon the main question. <Maine Itegister, 1 9 1 4 -1 5 , pp. 1 8 6 -1 S 7 .)
UAKYLAXD.
Senate.
No rule.
House.
19. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being
ordered by a majority of the members present, shall preclude all fur
ther debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon the immediate
question or questions on which it has been asked and ordered. It may
be asked and ordered upon any debatable motion or a series of motions
to and embracing the main question, if desired.
(Maryland Manual,
1912, p. 287.)
MASSACHUSETTS.
Senate.
47. Debate may- be closed at any time not less than one hour from
the adoption of a motion to that effect. On this motion not more than
10 minutes shall be allowed for debate, and no member shall speak
more than 3 minutes.
(Manual for the General Court, 1913, p. 5 33.)
House.
81. The previous question shall be put in the following form : “ Shall
the main question be now put'/’’ and all debate upon tbc main question
Shall be suspended until the previous question is decided.
82. On the previous question debate shall be allowed only to give
reasons why the main question should not be put.
83. All questions of order arising after a motion is made for the
previous question shall be decided without debate, excepting on appeal;
and on such appeal nc member shall speak more than once, without
leave of the house.
84. The adoption of the previous question shall put an end to all
debate, except as provided in rule 8G, and bring the house to a direct
vote upon pending amendments, if any, in their regular order, and then
upon the main question.
85. Debate may be closed at any time not less than 30 minutes from
the adoption of a motion to that effect. In case the time is extended
by unanimous consent, the same rule shall apply at the end of the
extended time as at the time originally fixed.
8(5. When debate is closed by ordering the previous question or by
a vote to close debate at a specified time, the member in charge of the
measure under consideration shall be allowed to speak 10 minutes and
may grant to any other member any portion of his time.
When the
measure under consideration has been referred to the committee on
ways and means, under house rule 44, the member originally reporting
it shall be considered in charge, except where the report of the com
mittee on ways and means is substantially different from that referred
to them, in which case the member originally reporting the measure
and the member of the committee on ways and means reporting thereon
Shall each be allowed to speak five minutes, the latter to have the
close. When the member entitled to speak under this rule is absent,
the member standing first in order upon the committee reporting the
measure who is present and joined in the report shall have the right
to occupy such time.
(Manual for the General Court, U 1 3 , pp. 5 6 6 568.)
M IC H IG A N .
Senate.
41. The mode of ordering the previous question shall be as follow s:
Any senator may move the previous question. This being seconded by at
least one other Senator, the chair shall submit the question in this form,
“ Shall the main question now be p u t ? ” This shall be ordered only by
a majority of the senators present and voting. The effect of ordering
the previous question shall be to instantly close debate and bring the
senate to an immediate vote on the pending question or questions in
their regular order.
The motion for the previous question may be
limited by the mover to one or more of the questions preceding tho
main question itself, in which case the form shall be, " Shall the ques
tion, as limited, be now p u t ? ” The yeas and nayB may be demanded on
81722— 14548
37
nuy vote under this rule, and a motion for a call of the senate snail
be in order at any time prior to the ordering of the previous question.
Any question of order or appeal from the decision of the chair, pond
ing the previous question, shall he decided without debate. When thB
question is on motion to reconsider, under the operation of the pre
vious question and it is decided in the affirmative, the previous ques
tion shall have no operation upon the question to be reconsidered. If
the senate refuses to order the previous question, the consideration
of the subject shall be resumed, as if no motion therefor had been made.
(Michigan Manual, 1913, p. 58G.1
House,
51. The method of ordering the previous question shall be as follows :
Any member may move the previous question. This being seconded by
at least 10 members, the chair shall put the question, “ Shall the main
question now be n u t ? ” This shall be ordered only by a majority of
the members present and voting. After the seconding of the previous
question, and prior to ordering the same, a call of tne house may be
moved and ordered, but after ordering the previous question nothing
shall he in order prior to the decision of the pending questions, except
demands for yens and nays, points of order, and appeils from the de
cision of the chair, which shall be decided without debate. The effect
of the previous Question shall be to put an end to all debate and bring
the house to a direct vote upon all pending questions in tlieir ordef
down to and including the main question.
When a motion to recon
sider is taken under the previous question, and is decided in the affirma
tive, the previous question shall have no operation upon the question to
be reconsidered. If the house shell refuse to order the main question,
the consideration of the subject shall he resumed, as though no motion
for the previous question had been made.
(Michigan Manual, 1913. p.
G 94-595.)
MINNESOTA
S en a te.
25. The previous Question shall be in this fo r m : “ Shall the main
question he now p u t ? ”
It shall only he admitted when demanded by
a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be to put an end
to all debate, and bring the Senate io a direct vote upon amendments
reported by a committee, if any, then upon all pending amendments in
their order, and then upon the main question.
On a motion for tho
previous question, and nrior to the ordering of the same, a call of
the senate shall be in order, hut after a majority shall have ordered such
motion, no call shall he in order prior to the decision of the main
question.
2G. On a previous question there shall he no debate. All incidental
questions of order arising after a motion is made for the previous ques
tion, and pending such motion, shall lie decided, whether on apneal or
otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual, Minnesota, 1913, p.
15G.)
House.
30. (a) The previous question shall he in this fo rm : “ The gentleman
Do 10 members second tho
from ------------ moves the previous question.
m o tio n ?”
If the motion he properly seconded, the question shall be
stated, as follows : “ As many as are in favor of ordering the previous
question will say ‘A y e ’ : as many as are opposed wil say ‘ No.’ ”
There shall be a motion for the previous question which, being or
dered by a majority of all members present, shall have the effect to cut
off all debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon the immediate
question or questions upon which it has been asked or ordered.
The previous question may he asked and ordered upon a single mo
tion, a series of motions allowab’ e under the rules, o r an amendment or
am endm ents; or it may he made to embrace all authorized motions or
amendments and include tho hill to its passage or rejection.
(b) A call of the house shall net be in order after the previous ques
tion is ordered unless it shall appear that a quorum is not present.
(c) When the previous question is decided In the negative, it shall
leave the main question under debate for the residue of the sitting
unless sooner dlsnosed of by taking a vote on the question or in some
other manner. (Legislative Manual, Minnesota, 1913, p. 109.)
Information not available.
M IS S IS S IP P I.
MISSOUKI.
Senate.
47. The previous question shall bo in this fo r m : “ Shall the main
question he now p u t ? ”
It shall only he admitted on demand o f two
senators and sustained by a vote of a majority of the senators present^
81722— 14548
and Its affect shall put an crtd to all debate and bring the senate to a
direct vote upon a motion to commit if such motion shall have been
m ade: and if this motion decs not prevail, then upon amendments re
ported hy a committee, if any, then upon pending amendments, and then
upon the main question. On demand of the previous question, a call of
the senate shall be in order, but after a m ajority have sustained such a
motion no call shall be in order prior to the decision on the main
question.
4S. On motion for the previous question no debate shall be allowed,
and all incidental questions of order arising after the motion is made for
the previous question, and. pending such motion, shall he decided, on
appeal or otherwise, without debate. If, on a vote for the previous ques
tion, a majority of the senators vote in the negative, then the further
consideration of the subject matter shall be in order.
(Senate Journal,
U U l, p. 37.)
Tic use.
57. The previous question shall he in this form : “ Shall the question
now under immediate consideration be now p u t ? ”
It may bo moved
and seconded like any other question, but it shall only prevail when
supported hy n majority of the members present, and, until decided,
shall preclude amendment and debate: and a failure to sustain the same
shall not put the matter under consideration from before the house, but
the house shall proceed as if said motion had not been blade.
(House
Journal, 1011, p. 21 .)
MONTANA.
/Senate.
"0 . The previous question s''all ho in this form : “ Shall the main
qnostion he now put.”
It shall only he admitted when demanded by
n majority of the senators present, upon division, and its effect shall
be to put an end to all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote
upon amendments reported by a committee, if any, upon pending amend
ments, and then upon the main question. On a motion for the previous
question, and prior to t ’ c seconding of the same, a call of the senate
shall he in order, but after a majority of the senators have seconded
such motion no call shall l:e in order prior to the decision of the main
question.
If the previous question is negatived, the senate shall pro
ceed in the same manner as if t ’ e motion had not been made.
51. On a motion for the previous question and under the previous
question there shall he no debate: and all incidental questions of order
arising after a motion is made for t ’ c previous question (or while act
ing under the previous question) shall he decided, whether on appeal or
otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual, 1893, pp. 23-2-1.)
1/cttsc.
X X IIT . 1. There shall he a motion for the previous question, which,
being ordered hy a m ajority, if a quorum be present, shall have the
effect to cut off a'l debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon
the Immediate question or questions on which it has boon asked or
ordered : Frovidcd. T hat when the previous question is ordered on any
proposition on which there has been no debate it shall be In order to
debate t Hc proposition to be voted on for 30 minutes, one-half of such
time to he given to debate in favor of and onc-’ialf in debate in oppo
sition to such proposition
The previous question may he asked and
ordered upon a single motion, a series of motions allowable under the
rules, or an amendment or amendments, and include the bill to its pas
sage or rejection. It shall be in order, pending the motion for or after
the previous question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the
speaker to entertain and submit motion to commit, with or without
instructions, to a standing or select com m ittee: and a motion to lay
unon the table shall be in order oix the second and third reading of a
bill.
2. A call of the house shall not be in order after the previous ques
tion is ordered unless it Khali appear upon an actual count by the
speaker that a quorum is not present.
3. All incidental questions of order arising from, after a motion is
made for the previous question, and pending such motion shall he de
cided. whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative
Manual, 1S95, pp. 3 4 -3 3 .)
NEBRASKA.
Senate.
1G. When a question Is under debate no motion can be xcceived hut
to adjeurn, for the previous question, to lay on the table, to postpone
Indefinitely, to postpone to a certain day. to commit, or amend, which
several motions shall have precedence in the order they stand arranged.
(J-egislntive Manual. 1 9 1 1 -1 2 . p. 112.)
81722— 14548
39
House.
2G. The previous question shall he in this form : “ Shall the debate
now c lo se ?”
It shall be admitted when demanded by live or more
members and mnst be sustained by a majority vote, and until decided
shall preclude further debate and all amendments and motions except
one motion to adjourn and one motion to lay on the table. _
_
27. On a previous question there shall be no debate. All incidental
questions of 0order
arising <after
is m
made
for the previous
1 u c i
in u
ua motion m
uuv,
^ ----------question andI pending
pendin such motion shall be decided, whether on appeal
(Legislative Manual, 1 9 1 1 -1 2 , p. 153.)
or otherwisei, without debate.
NEVADA.
Senate.
18. The previous question shall not be put unless demanded by three
Senators, and it shall be in this fo rm : "S h a ll the main question be
now p u t ? ”
When sustained by a majority of senators present it shall
put an end to all debate and bring the senate to a vote on the question
or questions before it. and all incidental questions arising after the
motion was made shall be decided without debate.
(Appendix to Jour
nals, 1911, v. 1, p. 125.)
Assem bly.
33. The previous question shall ue in this fo rm : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ” and its effect, when sustained by a majority^ of
the members elected, shall be to put an end to ail debate and bring
the house to a vote on the question or questions before it.
34. All incidental questions arising after a motion is made for the
previous question and pending such motion or previous question shall
be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
35. The previous question shall only be put when demanded by three
members.
(Appendix to Journals, 1911. v. 1, p. 141.)
NEW HAMPSHIRE.
Senate.
No rule.
House.
23. The speaker shall put the previous q'uestion in the following
fo rm : “ Shall the main question now be p u t ? ” and all debate upon the
main question shall be suspended until the previous question has been
decided.
After the adoption of the previous question, the sense of
the house shall forthwith be taken upon pending amendments, in their
regular order, and then upon the main question. The motion for the
previous question shall not be put unless demanded by three members.
24. All incidental questions of order arising after a motion for the
previous question and related to the subjects affected by the order of
the previous question shall be decided without debate.
25. If the previous question is decided in the negative, it shall not
be again in order until after adjournment, but the main question shall
lie left before the house and disposed of as though the previous question
had not been put. (Manual for the General Court, 1913, pp. 4 0 1 -4 0 8 .)
NEW JERSEY.
Senate.
No rule.
If ousc.
33. The previous question shall be put in this fo r m : " Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ”
It shall only be admitted when demanded
by a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be, if decided
affirmatively, to put an end to all debate, and bring the house to a
direct vote upon amendments reported by a committee, if any, then
upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question; if decided
in the negative, to leave the main question and amendments, if any,
under debate for the residue of the sitting, unless sooner disposed of
by taking the question, or in some other manner. All incidental ques
tions of order arising after a motion is made for the previous question,
and pending such motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or other
wise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual, 1914, p. 84.)
NEW MEXICO.
Information not available, except that before inauguration of state
hood previous question in both houses was allowed.
(Council Rules,
1907, p. 8 ; House Rules, 1901, p. 11.)
NEW YORK.
Senate.
32. When any bill, resolution, or motion shall have been under con
sideration for six hours it shall be in order for any senator to move
81722— 1454S
to close debate, and the president shall recognize the senator who
wishes to make such motion.
Such motion shall not be amendable
pr debatable and shall be immediately put, and if it shall receive the
affirmative votes of a majority of the senators present, the pending
measure shall take precedence aver all other business.* The vote shall
thereupon be taken upon such bill, motion, or resolution, with such
amendments as mav be pending at the time of such motion according
to the rules of the senate, but without further debate, except that any
senator who may desire so to do shall be permitted to sneak thereon
not more than once and not exceeding one-half hour. A fter such mo
tion to close debate has been made by any senator, no other motion
shall be in order until such motion has been voted upon by the senate.
After the senate shall have adopted the motion to close debate, as here
inbefore provided, no motion shall be in order but one motion to ad
journ and a motion to commit. Should said motion to adicurn be car
ried, the measure under consideration shall bo the pending question
When the senate shall again convene and shall be taken up at tile time
Of such adjournment. The motion to close debate may be ordered upon
a single motion, a series of motions allowable under the rules, or an
amendment or amendments, or may be made to embrace all authorized
motions or amendments and include the bill, resolution, or motion to its
passage or rejection. All incidental questions of order, or motions
pending at the time such motion is made to close debate, whether the
same be on appeal or otherwise, shall be decided without debate. (Ited
Book, 1914, pp. G 27-G 28.)
House.
29. The “ previous q uestion” shall be put as follow s: “ Shall the
main question now be pul ? ” and until it is decided, shall preclude all
amendments or debate.
When on taking the previous
. n me
house shall decide that the main question shall not now be put, the
main question shall be ccns'dered as still remaining under debate. The
“ main question ” shall be the advancement or passage of the bill, reso
lution, or other matter under consideration ; but when amendments are
pending, the question shall first be taken upon such amendments in their
order.
(Red Book, 1914, p. G59.)
•
N O E T II
C A K O I .IN A .
Senate.
24. The previous question shall be as fo llo w s: “ Shall the main
question be p u t ? ” and, until it is decided, shall preclude all amend
ments and debate. If this question shall be decided in the affirmative,
the “ main question ” shall be on the passage of the bill, resolution, or
other matter under consideration; but when amendments are pending
the question shall be taken upon such amendments, in their order,
without further debate or amendment. However, any senator may
move the previous question and may restrict the same to an amend
ment or other matter then under discussion.
If such question be
decided in the negative, the main question shall be considered as re
maining under debate.
25. When the motion for the previous question is made, and pending
the second thereto by a majority, debate shall cease, and only a motion
to adjourn or lay on the table shall be in order, which motions shall be
put as fo llo w s: Previous question ; adjourn ; lav on the table. After
a motion for the previous question is made, pending a second thereto,
any member may give notice that he desires to offer an amendment to
the bll: or other matter under consideration, and after the previous
question is seconded, such member s'"nll be entitled to offer his amend
ment in pursuance of such notice.
(Manual. 1913, p. 21.)
,
Ilcuse.
50. The previous question shall be ns follow s: “ Shall the main
question be now put?” and, until it is decided, shall preclude all
amendments and debate.
If this question shall be decided in the
affirmative, the “ main question” shall be on the passage of the bill,
resolution, or other matter under consideration, but when amendments
are pending, the question shall be taken upon such amendments, in
their order, without further debate or amendment.
If such question
be decided in the negative, the main question shall bo considered as
remaining under debate: Provided, That no one shall move the previous
question except the member submitting the report on the bill or other
matter under consideration, and the member introducing the bill or
other matter under consideration, or the member in charge of the
measure, who shall be designated by the chairman of the committee
reporting the same to the house at the time the bill or other matter
under consideration is reported to the house or taken up for considera
tion.
81722— 14548
41
When a motion for the previous question is made, and pending the
second thereto by a m ajority, debate shall cease; but if any member
obtains the door he may move to lay the matter under consideration
on the table, or move an adjournment, and when both or either of these
motions are pending the question shall stan d :
(1 ) Previous question.
(2) To adjourn.
(3 ) To lay on the table.
And then upon the main question, or amendments, or the motion to
postpone indefinitely, postpone to a day certain, to commit, or amend,
in the order of their precedence, until the main question is reached or
disposed o f : but after the previous question has been called by a ma
jority no motion, amendment, or debate shall be in order.
All motions below the motion to lay on the table must be made prior
to a motion for the previous question ; but, pending and not after the
second therefor, by the majority of the house, a motion to adjourn
or lay on the table, or both, are in order. This constitutes the prece
dence of the motion to adjourn and lay on the table over other motions
in rule 25.
Motions stand ns follows in order of precedence in rule 20 : Lay on
the table, pre'vious question, postpone indefinitely, postpone definitely,
to commit or amend.
When the previous question is called all motions below it fall, unless
made prior to the call, and all motions above it after its second by a
m ajority required. Pending the second, the' motions to adjourn and
lay on the table are in order, but not after a second. When in order
and every motion is before the house, the question stands as follow s:
Previous question, adjourn, lay on the table, postpone indefinitely, post
pone definitely, to commit, amendment to amendment, amendment, sub
stitute, bill.
The previous question covers all other motions when seconded by a
majority of the house, and proceeds by regular gradation to the main
question, without debate, amendment, or motion, until such question is
reached or disposed of. (House Rules, 1915, pp. 8 -1 0 .)
N O RTH DAKOTA.
Senate.
When a question is under debate no motion shall be received except
to adjourn, to lay on the table, to move for the previous question, to
move to postpone to a day certain, to commit or amend, to postpone
indefinitely, which several motions shall have precedence In the order
in which they are named, and no motion to postpone to a day certain,
to commit, to postpone indefinitely, having been decided, shall be enter
tained on the same day and at the same stage of the bill or proposition.
(Senate Rules, 1915, p. 11.)
House. '
14. The previous question shall be in this fo rm : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ”
It shall be admitted only when demanded by
a majority of the members present, and its effect shall be to put an end
to all debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon the amendments
reported by a committee, if any, upon the pending amendments and
then upon the main question. On a motion for the previous quesiion,
and prior to the seconding of the same, a call of the house shall be in
order, but after a majority shall have seconded such motion no call
s h a ll’be in order prior to decision of the main question.
15. When the previous question is decided in the negative it shall
leave the main question under debate for the remainder of the sitting
unless sooner disposed of in some other manner.
1G. All incidental questions of order arising after motion is made for
the previous question, during the pendency o f such motion, or after the
house shall have determined that the main question shall he now put
shall he decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(House Rules, 1915, pp. 1 3 -1 4 .)
8.
•
O H IO
Senate.
105. A motion for the previous question shall be entertained only
upon the demand o f three senators. The president shall put the ques
tion in this fo rm : “ The question is, Shall the debate now c lo s e ? ” and
until decided it shall preclude further debate and all amendments and
motions, except one motion to adjourn, one motion to take a recess, one
motion to lay on the table, and one call of the senate.
108. All Incidental questions or questions of order arising after the
demand for the previous question is made shall be decided without de
bate and shall not be subject to appeal.
81722— 14548
107. After the demand for the previous question has been sustained
no call or motion shall he in order, but the senate shall be brought to
an immediate vote, first upon the main question.
10.8. Agreement to a motion to reconsider a vote on a “ main onestion " shall not revive the “ previous question,” but the matter shall be
subject to amendment and debate.
(Legislative Manual, 1912, pp.
22—23.)
House.
52. The previous question shall be in this fo r m : “ Shall the debate
now c lo s e ? ”
It shall he permitted when demanded by five or more
members, and must be sustained by a majority vote, and. until decided,
shall preclude further debate, and all amendments and motions, except
one motion to adjourn, and one motion to iay on table.
58. All incidental questions or questions of order arising after a
motion is made for the previous question, and pending such motion,
shall be decided without debate and shall not be subject to apneal.
54. On a motion for the previous question, and prior to voting on the
same, a call of the house shall be in order ; but after the demand for
the previous question shall have been sustained no call shall be in order;
and the house shall be brought to an immediate vote."first upon the
pending amendments in the inverse order of their age, and then upon
the main question.
•
55. If a motion for the previous question be net sustained, the sub
ject under consideration shall be proceeded with the same as if the
motion had not been made.
(Legislative Manual, 1912, pp. 6 9 -7 9 .)
OKLAH OM A.
Senate.
33 (a) There shall be a motion for the previous question, which shall
be stated in these words, to wit, “ Shall the main question be now
p u t ? ” which, being ordered by a majority of the members voting, if
a quorum be present, shall have the effect to cut off all debate and
bring the house to a direct vote upon the immediate question or ques
tions on which it has been asked and ordered. The previous question
may be asked and ordered upon a single motion, a series of motions
allowable under the rules, cr an amendment or amendments, and in
clude the bill to its passage or rejection. It shall be in order, pending
the motion for or after the previous question, for the president to
entertain and submit a motion to commit with or without instructions
to a standing or select committee.
(Jefferson's Manual, sec. 24. >
(Jb) If the previous question is carried, the original mover of the
main question, or. if the bill or resolution originated in the other
house, then the chairman of the committee reporting the same, shall
have the right to close the debate and be limited to 15 minutes, and
should the previous question be ordered on a subject debatable before
the same has been debated the friends and opponents of the measure
shall have 80 minutes on e'ther side in which to debate the question if
desired. (Jefferson's Manual, sec. 3 4 ; Ited Book, 1912, v. 2, p. 109.)
House.
44. When any debatable question is before the house any member
may move the previous question, hut before it is put it shall be sec
onded by at least five members whether that question (called the main
question) shall now be put.
If it passes in the affirmative, then the
main question is to be put immediately, and no member shall debate
it further, either add to It or alter : Provided, That after the previous
question shall have been adopted the mover of the main question or
the chairman of the committee shall have the privilege of closing the
debate and be limited to one-fourth hour: Provided further. That when
the previous question has been ordered on a debatable proposition which
has not been debated 15 minutes in the aggregate shall be allowed the
friends and opponents of the proposition each before putting the main
question.
(Red Book, 1912. v. 2, p 96.)
OREGO.V.
Senate.
37. The previous question shall be put in the following fo r m : “ Shall
the main question now be p u t ? ”
It shall only be admitted when de
manded by a majority of the senators present, and its effect shall be
lo put .an end to all debate, except that the author of the bill or other
matter before the senate, shall have the right to close, and the subject
under discussion shall thereupon be immediately put to a vote. On a
motion for the previous question, prior to a vote of the senate being
taken, a call of the senate shall be in order.
(Senate Journal, 1911,
p. 359.1
S1722— 14548
43
House.
" 0 . The previous question shall be put in this form : “ Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ” It shall only be admitted when demanded
by a majority of the members present, and, until it is decided, shall
preclude all amendment and further debate on the main question except
by the mover of the original motion, who shall be allowed 10 minutes.
Qn a motion for the previous question, a roll call shall be in order if
demanded by two members.
31. On a previous question there shall be no debate; all incidental
questions of order arising after a motion is made for the previous ques
tion, and pending such motion, shall be decided, whether an appeal or
otherwise, without debate.
(House rules, 1909, p. 7.)
PENNSYLVANIA.
Senate.
9. The motion for the previous question, for postponement, for com
mitment, and for amendment, shall take precedence in the order men
tioned, and a motion for the previous question shall preclude any of
(he other motions from being m ade; a motion to postpone shall preclude
a motion to eoittmit: or to amend a motion to commit shall preclude a
motion to amend. The motion for the previous question, postponement
(other than indefinite postponement), or commitment shall preclude de
bate on the original subject. The previous question shall not be moved
by less than four members.
10. When a call for the previous question has been made and sus
tained, the question shall be upon pending amendments and the main
question in their regular order, and all incidental questions of order
arising after a motion for the previous question has been made, and
pending such motion shall be decided, whether on anpeal or other
wise, without debate. (Sm ull’s Legislative Handbook, 1914, p. 100G.)
House.
21. The previous question shall not be moved by less than 20 mem
bers rising for that purpose, and shall be determined without debate;
but when the previous question has been called and sustained it shall
not cut off any pending amendment, but the vote shall be taken without
debate, on the amendments in their order and then on the main ques
tion.
(Sm uil’s Legislative Handbook, 1914, p. 1031.)
RHODE ISLAND.
Senate.
20. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which shall not
be debatable, and which may be asked and ordered upon any bill or sec
tion thereof, amendment, motion, resolution, or question which is
debatable, any of which shall be considered as the main question for
the purpose o f apnlying the previous question. All incidental questions
of order arising after a motion for the previous question has been made,
and before the vote has been taken on the main question, shall be de
cided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
Whcu the previous question has been ordered a motion to reconsider
such vote shall not be in order, and no motion to adjourn while a
quorum is present shall be entertained between the taking of such vote
and the taking of the vote on the main question, but 10 minutes shall
be allowed for further rebate upon the main question, during which no
member shall speak more than 3 minutes, and a further period of 10
minutes, if desired, shall be allowed for debate to the member introduc
ing the bill or question to lie acted upon, or to the member or members
to whom lie may yield the floor, at the close of which time, or at tho
close of the first 10 minutes, in case the introducer does not desire to
so use his time, the vote on the main question shall lie taken. If inci
dental questions of order are raised after the previous question has
been ordered, tho time occupied in deciding such questions shall be
deducted from the time allowed for debate. (Manual, 1914, p. 359.)
House.
29. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which shall not
be debatable, and which may be moved, and ordered upon any bill or sec
tion thereof, amendment, motion, resolution, or question which is debat
able. any of which shall be considered as the main question for the pur
pose of applying the previous question. When a motion for the previous
question has been made, no other motion shall be entertained by the
speaker until it has been put to the house and decided. All incidental
questions of order arising after a motion for the previous question has
been made, and before the vote has been taken on the main question,
shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate. When
the previous question has been ordered a motion to reconsider such vote
81722— 14548
shall not be In order, and no motion to adjourn or to take a recess while
a quorum is present shall be entertained between the taking of such voto
and the taking of the vote on the main question, but 10 minutes shall
be allowed for further debate upon the main question, during which no
member shall sneak more than 3 minutes, and a further period of 10
minutes, if desired, shall be allowed for debate to the member intro
ducing the bill or question to be acted upon, or to the member or mem
bers to whom he may yield the floor, at the close of which time, or at
the close of the first 10 minutes, in case the introducer docs not desire
to so use his time, the vote on the main question shall be taken.
If
incidental questions of order are raised after the previous question has
been ordered, the lime occupied in deciding such questions shall be
deducted from the time allowed for debate. (Manual, 1914, p. 3G7.)
SOUTH CAROLINA.
No information available.
SOUTH DAKOTA.
Senate.
62. The previous question shall be stated in this fo rm : “ Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ’’ and u n til-it is decided shall preclude all
amendments or debate. When it is decided the main question shall not
be now nut, the main question shall be considered as still remaining
under debate.
63. The effect o f the main question being ordered shall be to pnt
an end to all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote, first, upon
all amendments reported or pending in the inverse order in which they
are offered. After a motion fer the previous question has prevailed, it
shall not be in order to move a call of the senate or to move to
adiourn. prior to a decision of the main question.
64. The senate may at any time, by a majority vote, close all debate
upon a pending amendment, or an amendment thereto, and cause the
question to be put thereon, and this does not preclude further amend
ments or debate on the main subject.
(Manual 1913, p. 5G5-56G.)
House.
15. On a motion for the previous question and prior to voting on the
same, a call of the house shall be in order, but after the demand for
the previrus question shall have been sustained, no call shall be in
order, and the house shall be brought to an immediate vote— first,
upon the pending amendments in the inverse order of their age, and
then upon the main question. The previous question may be ordered
upon all recognised motions or amendments which are debatable, and
shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the assembly to
a direct vote upon the motion or amendment on which it has been
ordered.
16. When the previous question is decided in the negative it shall
leave the main question under debate for the residue of the sitting,
unless sooner disposed of by taking the question, or in some other
manner.
17. All incidental questions c f order arising after motion is made for
the previous question, during the pending of such motions or after the
House shall have determined that the main question shall now be pnt,
shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Manual 1913, p. 569.)
TENNESSEE.
Senate.
22. The previous question shall be in this fo rm : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ”
It shall be admitted only when demanded by
a majority of the members present.
If the previous question is sus
tained. its effect shall be to preclude all future amendments, and termin
ate all debate and bring the senate to a direct vote upon the subieet
or matter to which it was applied in the call. (Manual 1890, p. 157.)
House.
55. The previous question shall be in this form : “ Shall the main
question be now p u t ? ’
It shall only be admitted when demanded by
two-thirds of the members present.
And if the call is made and sus
tained. its effect shall be to preclude all future amendments and termi
nate all debate; but it may be applied to the main question, or to the
main question and amendment, or the main question, amendment, and
amendment to the amendment, and shall bring the house to a direct
vote on the question in the order in which they stand and from tho
point where the call was applied.
But in all debates upon resolu
tions or bills immediately prior to their final passage on third reading
the mover or author of the resolution or bill shall have the right to
81722— 14548
45
close the debate thereon, and no call for the previous question, nor
any other motion, shall cut off this right in the mover or author of the
measure.
(Manual, 1800, p. 154.)
TEXAS.
Senate.
00. Tending the consideration of any question before the senate, any
senator may call for (lie previous question, and if seconded by five sena
tors the presiding officer shall submit the question. “ Shall the main
question now be p u t ? ”
And if a m ajority vote is in favor of it, the
main question shall be ordered, the effect of which shall be to cut off
all further amendments and debate and bring the senate to a direct
vote— first, upon pending amendments and motions, if there be any ;
then upon the main proposition. The previous question may be ordered
on any pending amendment or motion before the senate as a separate
proposition and be decided by a vote upon said amendment or motion.
(Senate Journal, 1911, p. 172.)
House.
X III.
1. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which shall
be admitted only when seconded by twenty-five (25) members. It shall
be put by the chair in this manner : “ The motion has been seconded.
As many as are in favor of ordering the previous question on (here
state on what question or questions) will say ‘ aye,’ ” and then, “ As
many as are opposed say ‘ no.’ ” If ordered by a majority of the mem
bers voting, a quorum being present, it shall have the effect of cutting
off all debate and bringing the house to a direct vote upon the imme
diate question or questions upon which it has been asked and ordered.
2. The previous question may be asked and ordered upon any debat
able single motion or series of motions allowable under the rules, or an
amendment or amendments, or may be made to embrace all authorized
debatable motions or amendments, and include the bill or resolution to
its passage or rejection. It may be applied to motions to postpone to a
dnv certain, or indefinitely, or to commit, and can not be laid upon the
•table.
5. On the motion for the previous question there shall be no debate,
and all incidental questions of order after it is made, and pending such
motion, shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise, without
debate.
4. After the previous question has been ordered there shall be no
debate upon the questions on which it has been ordered, or upon inci
dental questions, except only that the mover of the proposition or the
member making the report from the committee, as the case may be,
or, in case of the absence of either of them, any other member desig
nated by such absentee, shall have the right to close the debate, after
which a vote shall be immediately taken on the amendments, if any
there were, and then on the main question.
5. When (he previous question is ordered upon a motion to postone indefinitely or to amend by striking out the enacting clause of a
ill the mover of a proposition or bill proposed to be so postponed or
amended, or the member reporting the same from a committee, shall
have the right to close the debate on the original proposition, after
which the member moving to postpone or amend shall be allowed to
close the debate on his motion or amendment.
G. No motion for an adjournment or recess shall be in order after
the previous question is seconded until the final vote upon the main
question shall be taken, unless the roll call shows the absence of a
quorum.
7. A call of the House may be moved after the previous question
has been ordered. (House Journal, 1913, p. 70 .)
C
UTAH,
Senate.
No rule.
ITouse.
30. The previous question shall be in this form : " Shall the question
be now p u t ? ”
And its effect, when sustained by a majority of the
members present, shall be to put an end to all debate, except as to the
mover of the matter pending or the chairman of the committee who
reported it, who shall be privileged to close the debate and bring the
House to a vote on the question or questions before i t : Pratitleil. That
when a motion to arnerd or to commit is pending its effect shall be
to cut off debate and bring the house to a vote on the motion to amend
or commit only and not upon the question to be amended or com8 1 7 2 2 — 14548
46
mltted. All Incidental questions arising after motion Is made for tlio
previous question shall be decided, whether on appeal or otherwise,
without debate.
The previous question shall be put only when de
manded by two members. (House Journal, 1913, p. — .)
VERM ONT.
v
Senate.
2G. A call for the previous question shall not at any time be in
order.
A motion to adjourn shall always bo in order, except when
the Senate is engaged in voting.
(Senate Rules, 1915, p. 17.)
House.
3S. A t any time in the course of debate on a debatable question a
member may move “ that debate upon the pending question do now
close,” and the speaker shall put the question to the house without
debate, and if the motion is decided in the affirmative debate shall bo
closed on the immediate pending question.
Or a member may move
“ that debate on the whole question do now close." and it the'm otion
be decided in the affirmative debate shall be closed on the whole
question and the main question shall be put in its order, and no
motion, except a motion to substitute either of said motions for the
other, shall be in order until the main question is put and decided.
(House Rules, 1915, p. 40.) •
V IR G IN IA .
Senate.
49. Upon a motion for the pending question, seconded by a majority
of the senators present, indicated by a rising or by a recorded vote,
the president shall immediately put the pending question, and all inci
dental questions of order arising after a moiion for the pending
question is made, and, pending such motion, shall be decided, whether
on appeal or otherwise, without debate.
50. Upon a motion for the previous question seconded l>.v a majority
of the senators present, indicated by a rising or by a recorded vote,
the president shall immediately put the question : first, upon amend
ments in the order prescribed in the rules, and then upon the main
question. If the previous question he not ordered, debate may continueas if the motion had not been made.
(Rules, 1914, pp. 1G -17.)
House.
G5. Pending a debate any member who obtains the floor for that
purpose only and submits no other motion or remark may move for the
‘ previous question ” or ,he “ pending question,” and in either case the
motion shall be forthwith put to the house. Two-thirds of the members
present shall be required to order the main question, but a majority
may require an immediate vote upon the pending question, whatever it
may be.
GG. The previous question shall be in this form : “ Shall the main
question now he p u t ? ” If carried, its effect shall be to put an end to
all debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon a motion to com
mit if pending, then upon amendments reported by a committee if any,
then upon pending amendments, and then upon the main question. If
upon the motion for the previous question the main question be not
ordered, debate may continue as if the motion had not been made.
(Rules, 1914, pp. 3 9 -4 0 .)
W A S H IN G T O N .
Senate.
39. The previous question shall not be put unless demanded by three
senators whose names shall be entered upon the journal, and it shall
then be in this fo rm : “ Shall the main question be now p u t ? ”
When
Bustitined by a majority of senators present it shall preclude all debate,
and the roll shall be immediately called on the question or questions
before the senate, and all incidental question or questions of order
arising after the motion is made after the previous question and pending
Euch motion shall be decided whether on anneal or otherwise without
debate.
(Legislative Manual, 1911, pp. 3G -37.)
House.
27. The previous question may be ordered by two-thirds of the mem
bers present Upon all recognized motions or amendments which are
debatable, and shall have the effect to cut off all debate and bring the
house to a direct vote upon the motion or amendment on which it has
been ordered.
On motion for the previous question and prior to the
seconding of the same a call of the house shall he in order, but such
call shall not be in order thereafter prior to the decision of the main
question.
81722— 14548
47
The question is not debatable and can not be amended. The previous
question shall be put in this fo r m : “ Mr. ------------ demands the previous
question. As many as are in favor of ordering the previous question
will say ‘Aye ’ ; as many as are opposed will say ‘ No.’ ”
The results of the motion are as follow s:
If determined in the negative, the consideration goes on as if the
motion had never been m ade; if decided in the affirmative, the presiding
officer at once, and without debate, proceeds to put, first, the amend
ments pending and then the main question as amended. If an adjourn
ment is had after the previous question is ordered, the subject comes
up the first thing after the reading of the journal the next day, and
the previous question privileged over all other business, whether new or
unfinished.
(Legislative Manual, 1011, p. 51.)
W E S T V IR G IN IA .
Senate.
5G. There shall be a motion for the previous question, which, being
ordered by a majority of members present, if a quorum, shall have the
effect to cut off all debate and bring the senate to direct vote upon the
immediate question or questions on which it has been asked and ordered.
The previous question may be asked and ordered upon a single motion,
a series of motions, or may be made to embrace all authorized motions
and amendments and include the bill to its engrossment and third read
ing, and then, on renewal and second of said motion, to its passage or
rejection.
It shall be in order, pending a motion for or after the pre
vious question shall have been ordered on its passage, for the president
to entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instruc
tion, to a standing or select com m ittee: and a motion to lay upon the
table shall be in order on the second and third reading of a bill.
(2 ) A call of the senate shall not be in order after the previous ques
tion is in order unless it shall appear upon an actual count by the
president that a quorum is not present.
(3 ) All incidental questions of order arising after a motion is made
for the previous question, and, pending such motion, shall be decided
whether an appeal or otherwise, without debate.
(Legislative Manual’
1913, p. 4 4 -4 5 .)
House.
78. If the previous question be demanded by not less than seven
members, the speaker shall, without debate, put the question, •• Shall the
main question be now p u t ? ”
If this question be decided in the affirma
tive, all further debate shall cease and the vote be at once taken on the
proposition pending before the house. When the house refuses to order
the main question, the consideration of the subject shall be resumed as
if the previous question had not been demanded.
79. The previous question shall not be admitted in the committee of
the whole.
(Legislative Manual, 1913, p. 70.)
WISCONSIN.
Senate and house.
80. Moving previous question. When any bill, memorial, or resolution
is under consideration, any member being in order and having the floor
may move the “ previous question,” but such motion must be seconded
by at least 5 senators or 15 members of the assembly.
81. l ’utting of motion ; ending debate. The previous question being
moved, the presiding officer shall say, “ It requiring 5 senators or 13
members of the assembly, as the case may be, to second the motion for
the previous question, those in favor of sustaining the motion will
rise.
And if a sufficient number rise, the previous question shall be
thereby seconded, and the question shall then b e : “ Shall the main ques
tion be now p u t ? ” which question shall be determined by the yeas and
nays. The main question being ordered to be now put, its effects shall
be to put an end to all debate and bring the house to a direct vote upon
the pending amendments, If there be any, and then upon the main
question.
82. Main question may remain before house, when.
On taking the
previous question, the house shall decide that the main question shall
not now be put, the main question shall remain as the question before
the house, in the same stage of proceedings as before the previous ques
tion was moved.
83. One call of house In order, when. On motion for the previous
question, and prior to the ordering of the main question, one call of
the house shall be in order; but after proceedings under such call shall
have been once dispensed with, or after a majority shall have ordered
the main question, no call shall be in order prior to the decision of
such question.
(Manual, 1911, pp. 9 7 -9 8 .)
81722— 14548
48
W Y O M IN G .
Senate.
43. Any member may move the previous question, and if it be sec
onded by three other members, the previous question shall be put in
this form : “ Shall the main question be now p u t ? ”
The object of this
motion is to bring the senate to a vote on the pending question without
further discussion : and if the motion fails, tlie discussion may pro
ceed the same as if the motion had not been m ade; if carried, all debato
r.hnl! '■case. and the president shall immediately put the main ques
tion to v o te : First on proposed amendments in their order, and then
on the main question, without debate on further am endm ent: Provided.
That a motion to adjourn and a call of the senate shall each he in
order after the previous question lias been sustained and before the
main question is put. but no other motion or call shall be in order,
except to receive the report of the sergeant at arms or to dispense \yith
the proceedings under tiie call, and ail motions and proceedings au
thorized by this rule shall he derided without debate, whether on appeal
or otherwise.
(Senate Rules. 1915, p. 13.)
House.
25. Any member may move the previous question, and if it be sec
onded by three other members, the previous question shall be put in
this form. “ The previous question is demanded.”
The obiect of this
motion is to bring the house to a vote on the pending question without
discussion, and if the motion fails, the discussion may proceed the same
as if the motion had not been m ad e: if carried, all debate shall cease,
and the speaker shall immediately put the question to v o te ; first, on
prooosed amendments in their order, and then on the main question,
without debate or further am endm ents: Provided, That a motion to
adjourn and a call of the house shall each be in order after the
“ previous question” has been sustained, and before the main question
is put.'but no other motion or call shall he in order, except to receive
the report of the sergeant-at-arms, or to dispense with the proceedings
under the call ; and all motions and proceedings authorized by this
rule shall be decided without debate, whether on appeal or otherwise.
(House Journal, 1911, p. 78.)
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from Nebraska?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. I wish to ask the Senator whether there
is not a distinction which he ought to draw between the Senate
of the United States and tlipse various legislative bodies, and
also between the Senate of the United States and the House of
Commons in London, the Reichstag in Berlin, and the Chamber
of Deputies in Paris? In all of those cases the members vote in
accordance with their judgments and their convictions, and
when they come to a vote you get the vote o f the majority. In
the Senate o f the United States, however, in the case of the
pending bill, you are not permitting Senators to vote in accord
ance with their judgments and in accordance with their convic
tions. You have held a so-called Democratic caucus, and it is
notorious that a number of the Democratic Senators here are
under caucus compulsion to vote against their judgments and
against their convictions; so that to hold them thus bound and
then compel a vote is to enable 30 Members of the Senate to
represent a majority. Now. those 30 Senators do not constitute
a majority of the Senate, and the caucus rule coupled with the
cloture would not develop the real sense o f the Senate of the
United States. It would not give to the majority of the Senate
the decision of the question. It would be a mechanical, artificial
means of enabling 36 Senators to decide the question. Is not
that a distinction?
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President. I shall be very glad to answer the
Senator. I am glad he asked me the question, because it
81722— 14548
affords me an opportunity to answer, and I wish to answer It
frankly and with the truth as I understand it.
I think it the common rule of practice that in all the States
party caucuses or conferences are used when desired to obtain
party harmony in party action.
Under the system that we have of party government, where
the members of each party line up with complete solidarity on
either side of the aisle— I may say with complete solidarity,
because the exception is very rare—where that is the case, and
where there is a conference or caucus on both sides, it comes
down to a question of party government; and party government
must be controlled by a majority of the members of the party.
The party then becomes jointly responsible throughout the
Nation for the action of the party in the Senate and House of
Representatives. If the party acts unwisely, the Senator from
Nebraska will be defeated. If it acts wisely, he will not be de
feated, under normal conditions.
That being so, if I have to choose between a Republican
caucus or a Republican conference and a Democratic caucus
or a Democratic conference, I will prefer to yield some por
tion of my judgment to my own Democratic colleagues and
go with them’ upon a public question. If I find that I can not
in conscience, if I can not as a constitutional duty, go with my
colleagues, however painful it may be to me, I shall reluctantly
go my way and take the consequences. But when I yield a part
of my desire I do so freely and voluntarily for the purpose of
accomplishing some measure of good rather than by my nega
tive self-opinionated action preventing anything from being ac
complished. I would rather go forward ro some extent than try
to have my own private opinion dominate the majority o f my
colleagues and disrupt them and not get anywhere.
I think this practice of the Senate in having no cloture, in
having no time fixed for voting, has destroyed debate in the
Senate and has driven the debate into a conference room, where
colleagues can get together and express their minds and hearts
to each other and arrive at some measure o f solidarity. That
is my opinion about it. I concede to the Senator his'right to
do as he sees fit about it, but I do not find it against my own
conscience or my own free will to yield something in my judg
ment to my party associates. I am glad to do that, because
they yield something to me also.
It is a question of mutual compromise between men who are
affiliated together upon a party basis for the public good, and
they go to the country upon party performance or party neglect
or party success in legislation or party defeat in legislation.
I am not willing to defeat the party that put me in power and
turn upon them and rend them to pieces. I am not willing to
disorganize my party and cooperate with Republicans to de
feat my party because the majority of my party colleagues do
not submit to dictation from me. I wish to cooperate with my
party associates and help them when I can. I certainly would
not wish to destroy them. I would prefer to be silent if I can
not agree with them and merely give the reasons why I can not
go with them.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Well, I-----Mr. OWEN. Just a moment, and then I will “yteld further
to the Senator. What I want to express is that if we had a
81722— 14548-------- 4
50
cloture we would restore debate in the Senate Chamber, and I
would then be glad to listen to debate from Members across the
aisle and learn from them, and I would accept from them any
proposal that I thought for the common good. In writing the
Federal reserve act and taking a part in it many things were
proposed by the Republicans which I gladly accepted, as far as
I was concerned; and I gave them open credit for it, too.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. How could the Senator accept it if he
were restrained by a party caucus?
Mr. OWEN. I was not restrained or coerced by a party cau
cus. I am glad to cooperate of my own free will. I wish the
Senator could appreciate my sentiment in this matter.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Well, how could he, in the case of this
bill, accept it?
Mr. OWEN. In the case of this bill—the shipping bill—we
have arrived at a conclusion with regard to what the bill
ought to be and have agreed upon it among ourselves. It is
not quite what I would prefer, but I am glad to get this much.
We have had no method of cooperation with the Republican
side of the Chamber, who have fought us on every endeavor
we have made on this and every other bill. They have not
given us an opportunity. They have lined up solidly and en
tered into a secret agreement with some of our own Members
who were in partial sympathy with them to suddenly and un
expectedly unhorse us, and they have given us no opportunity
for free debate here or listening to them. They have given
the Democratic Party no opportunity of cooperation, but have
tried, by using some of our Members, to wrongfully deprive
the Democracy of its right to control the Government and be
responsible for government.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. The question which I asked the Senator
he" has not perhaps apprehended, or I think he would have at
tempted to answer it.
Mr. OWEN. I will attempt to answer it now, if the Senator
will repeat it.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Let me put it in the form of an illus
tration.
The Nebraska Legislature is in session. It is true that there
is a limit to debate in that body, but practically every question—
and I believe I am safe in saying every question—is decided
upon nonpartisan lines. The real majority of the Nebraska
Senate, the real majority of the Nebraska House of Representa
tives, when it comes to vote, votes in accordance with its con
victions—each man in accordance with his convictions. When
they can so vote it is proper that there should be a cloture; but
when men are restrained from voting their own convictions,
when you have a machine, when you have a wheel within a
wheel, so that 36 men are controlling the votes of 53 men, then
I doubt very much whether we should have a cloture.
Mr. OWEN. I do not regard it as controlling my vote when
I voluntarily cooperate with other men who are my political
colleagues and yield something of my judgment to them when
they yield something of their judgment to me. I do not feel
like asserting every inch and particle of my opinion and un
generously yielding nothing whatever to my associates who are
generous to me, and then say that la m being coerced by others
because I will not cooperate with them. When I cooperate
81722— 14548
with my associates I do it voluntarily. I do not do it under
compulsion. I do it because I want to do it, and because I
know it is necessary to party solidarity and to obtaining re
sponsible action of my own party, whose future success depends
on present harmony.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. The Senator is a Democrat, and he be
lieves in the rule of the majority?
Mr. OWEN. I do, most certainly.
Mr. HITCHCOCK. Yet this mechanical device of the party
caucus destroys the rule of the majority, by giving to 36 men
the power to vote 53 men.
Mr. OWEN. There is a certain measure of truth in what the
Senator says, and there is also serious deduction or inference
which is untrue in what the Senator says. If this body con
sisted of men chosen upon an open ballot from Nebraska and
Missouri and Oklahoma without any party designation, then
the caucus would be held on this floor. As it is, the power is
Intrusted to a party, and in order , to have party action the
members o f it have got to consult among themselves and de
termine the party action. You do not determine the party ac
tion by consulting with Senators on the other side of the Cham
ber who are hostile to the party, who are laying plans wherever
they can to destroy the party and break it down, in order that
they may themselves regain control of the country, and who
show a greater party solidarity than the Democrats ever do.
In a caucus of 53 men all of the members express their views
and concede to each other, finally reconciling all differences by a
majority vote, because that is the only way such differences
can be reconciled. The implication that an organized majority
of the 53 members of the caucus get together to tyrannize over
the minority of the 53 members is entirely false, I verily believe.
Some members constantly in such conferences find themselves
now in a majority, now in a minority—and out of mutual con
cessions present party harmony ensues and future party success
may be hoped for.
Mr. GALLINGER. Mr. President----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield to the Senator from New Hampshire?
Mr. OWEN. I yield.
Mr. GALLINGER. If I understood the Senator correctly, he
said that the Democratic Party held caucuses and the Repub
lican Party held caucuses, and, of course, he would follow his
own party.
Mr. OWEN. I used both terms, “ caucus'’ and “ conference.”
Mr. GALLINGER. I want to say to the Senator, in all seri
ousness, I have been here nearly 24 years and have attended
every conference when I have been in the city, and the Republi
can Party has never undertaken to bind its members to vote
on any question whatever.
Mr. OWEN. That does not seem to have been necessary.
Mr. GALLINGER. I beg the Senator’s pardon.
Mr. OWEN. I suggested to the Senator that there seemed to
be no necessity of imposing a rule upon a party which holds its
party solidarity without a caucus.
Mr. GALLINGER. That is begging the question. What 1
meant to say is that in our conferences, when they are dis8 1 7 2 2 — 1 4 548
52
solved every member of the conference has a right to vote as
he pleases upon any question before the body.
Mr. OWEN. I only infer from the record, and assume that
there is some kind of amiable understanding, which seems to
be sufficient for that purpose, because no Republican ever votes
with the Democrats except on the rarest of occasions. They
vote all together, even when they are obviously wrong and
even on minor questions.
Mr. SMOOT and Mr. THOMAS addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will please be In
order. The business of the Senate can not be conducted when
more than one Senator is talking at a time.
Mr. OWEN. Did the Senator from Utah rise to interrupt
me?
Mr. SMOOT. I simply want to add to what the Senator from
New Hampshire has already stated, that not only has the Re
publican Party not held caucuses to bind any Senator, but in
all the time I have been a Senator of the United States I
have had no President of the United States ask me to vote any
way but once, and then President Taft asked me if I could see
tny way clear to vote for Canadian reciprocity. I told the Pres
ident I could not. and that I would vote against it.
Mr. OWEN. May I ask the Senator from Utah a question in
response?
Mr. SMOOT. Certainly.
Mr. OWEN. I merely want to ask the Senator from Utah if
it is not a fact that the last Republican President refused
patronage to Republican Senators who did not vote the way
he wanted them.
Mr. SMOOT. Ia m sure he did not. I know he did not refuse
it to me. I know I voted against Canadian reciprocity and I
know a majority of the Republicans voted against it, but I
never have heard-----Mr. OWEN. A letter from the former President’s secretary
was widely published to the effect that the Progressive Repub
licans were very much grieved at the time and made quite a
loud outcry about the treatment they received.
Mr. SMOOT What the newspapers may say is not always
true. I wish to say ro the Senator that the only time I was
ever asked to vote for any measure by any President was by
President Taft, and he asked me if I could not see my way
clear to vote for Canadian reciprocity. I told him. “ No; I
could not ” ; and I voted against it and did all I could to defeat
it, and I know a majority of the Republicans voted against it
and tried to defeat it; and I know of none to whom patronage
was denied, as the Senator has referred to that, because of the
fact that they voted against Canadian reciprocity.
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President-----Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. THOMAS. I merely wish to say, Mr. President, that
the public were informed, and I have never seen it successfully
denied, that the Congress which ended in March, 1911, which
had a very large Republican majority in both Houses, and
which was therefore controlled by the Republicans in both
Houses, seemed to act with singular unanimity, and it was gen
erally understood that the Republican 'majority of the Senate
81722— 14548
53
branch of that Congress voted and legislated under the dictation
of a single man, thus making a caucus unnecessary.
Mr. SMITH of Michigan. When was that?
Mr. SMOOT. I should like to ask the Senator a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield further?
Mr. OWEN. I yield to the Senator from Utah.
Mr. SMOOT. What was the bill, or to what legislation has
the Senator from Colorado reference?
Mr. THOMAS. I have reference, Mr. President, to the legis
lation that was enacted under the domination of the then senior
Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Aldrich.
Mr. SMOOT. I suppose the Senator means the tariff bill, and
I think that he-----Mr. THOMAS. He was the caucus and his mandate was
your law.
Mr. SMOOT. Of course, that is an assertion made wholly
without any truth whatever. I know one thing. I know that he
was not the caucus for the Senator from Utah and I do not
believe he was the caucus for anyone else on this side.
Mr. THOMAS. I do not think that the Senator from Utah
differed very materially from the Senator from Rhode Island
during that Congress. My recollection is that he was his chief
lieutenant.
Mr. SMOOT. As far as that is concerned. I will say that
wherever I believe a principle to be right and any other Senator
may believe the same way I am not going to differ with him, if
he votes his convictions as I do; and I believe the Senator will
admit I always vote what my true convictions are irrespective
of what any man in the world may think of it or may say.
Mr. THOMAS. I concede that; but I want Senators to be
consistent. I vote my convictions, but I am accused o f voting
at the dictation of 36 members of my party. Now, is it possible
that because 36 members of my party meet in caucus—and I am
not afraid of the word “ caucus.” Mr. President, I believe in it—
and because I vote in accordance with what the caucus of my
party determines after full deliberation, am I to be accused
also of surrendering my convictions, my freedom of action? It
remains just the same; and I think my short record in this
body will demonstrate the fact, notwithstanding that caucuses
seem at present to be so annoying to those who represent the
other side and also to some who are on this side of the Chamber.
Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President-----The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Okla
homa yield further to the Senator from Utah?
Mr. SMOOT. There is just one other statement I desire to
make.
Mr. OWEN. I yield.
Mr. SMOOT. Of course, the Senator from Colorado believes
in caucuses. I do not. I think some of the worst legislation
that was ever enacted in Congress has been the result of
caucuses.
Mr. THOMAS. Does the Senator believe in conferences?
Mr. SMOOT. I believe in conferences, but I do not believe
the conferences should bind anybody who attends them.
Mr. THOMAS. I have noticed that the conferences which
already have been held by my Republican friends have re81 722— 14548
54
suited in a unanimity of action and o f sentiment that is simply
astonishing.
Mr. SMOOT. I can say to the Senator from Colorado that
I have attended many conferences where there was a divided
vote. I will say th is: I do not remember attending a con
ference of the Republican Party where there has been a
unanimity of sentiment.
Mr. THOMAS. I do not know, of course, what is the
unanimity of sentiment in the conference. I am talking about
the unanimity displayed here.
Mr. SMOOT. I will say to the Senator that there has been
no conference held on this bill.
Mr. THOMAS. Then there is a mysterious magnetic some
thing which seems to act of its own volition and which binds
our brethren more closely than any caucus even seems to be
able to bind this side.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President. I wish to place in the R ecord
at this point the precedents of the English Government, of the
French Government, of the German Government, of the Aus
tria-Hungary Government, of the Austrian Government, and of
the Governments of Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, and Switzerland, and, not desiring to take the time of
the Senate to read them. I will ask to insert them without read
ing with the authority from which it is taken.
The matter referred to is as follows:
ENGLISH PRECEDENTS.
“ The rule of the majority is the rule in all the parliaments of
English-speaking people. In the Parliament of Great Britain,
in the House of Lords, the “contents’ pass to the right and
the “ not contents ’ pass to the left, and the majority rules.
“ In the House of Commons the ‘ ayes’ pass to the right and
the ‘ noes’ pass to the left, and the majority rules. (Encyclo
paedia Britannica, vol. 20, p. 85G.)
“ The great English statesman, Mr. Gladstone, having found
that the efficiency o f Parliament was destroyed by the right
of unlimited debate, was led to propose cloture in the first
week of the session of 1S82. moving this resolution on the 20th
of February, and expressing the opinion that the house should
settle its own procedure. The acts o f Mr. Gladstone and others
of like opinion finally led to the termination of unlimited de
bate in the procedure of Parliament. In these debates every
fallacious argument now advanced by those who wish to retain
unlimited debate in the United States Senate has been abun
dantly answered, leaving no ground of sound reasoning to recon
sider these stale and exploded arguments.
“ The cloture of debate is very commonly used in the Houses
of Parliament in Great Britain; for example, in standing order
No. 26. The return to order of the House of Commons, dated
December 12. 1906, shows that the cloture was moved 112 times.
(See vol. 94, Great Britain House of Commons, sessional papers,
1906.)
FRANCE.
' “ In France the cloture is moved by one or more members cry
ing out ‘ La cloture ! ’
“ The president immediately puts the question, and if a member of the
minority wishes to speak he is allowed to assign his reasons against
81722— 14548
55
the close of the debate, but no one can speak in support of the
and only one member against it.
The question is then put
president, ‘ Shall the debate be closed ? ’ and if it is resolved
affirmative the debate is closed and the main question is put
vote.
motion
by the
in the
to the
“ M. Guizot, speaking on the efficacy of the cloture before a
committee of the House o f Commons in 1S48, said :
“ I think that in our chamber it was an indispensable power, and I
think it has not been used unjustly or improperly generally. Calling
to mind what has passed of late years, I do not recollect any serious
and honest complaint of the cloture. In the French Chambers, as they
have been during the last 34 years, no member can imagine that the
debate would have been properly conducted without the power of pro
nouncing the cloture.
“ He also stated in another part of his evidence that—
“ Before the introduction of the cloture in 1814 the debates were pro
tracted indefinitely, aud not only were they protracted, but at the end,
when the majority wished to put an end to the debate and the minority
would not, the debate became very violent for protracting the debate,
and out of the house among the public it was a source of ridicule.
“ The French also allow the previous question, and it can al
ways be moved; it can not be proposed on motions for which
urgency is claimed, except after the report of the committee of
initiative. (Dickinson’s Rules and Procedure of Foreign Par
liaments. p. 426.)
GERMANY.
“ The majority rule controls likewise in the German Empire
and they have the cloture upon the support of 30 members of
the house, which is immediately voted on at any time by a
show of hands or by the ayes and noes.
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY.
“ In Austria-Hungary motions for the closing of the debate
are to be put to the vote at once by the president without any
question, and thereupon the matter is determined. If the ma
jority decides for a close of the debate, the members whose
names are put down to speak for or against the motions may
choose from amongst them one speaker on each side, and the
matter is disposed of by voting a simple yes or no. (Ibid., p.
404.)
AUSTRIA.
“ Austria also, in its independent houses of Parliament, has
the cloture, which may be put to the vote at any time in both
houses, and a small majority suffices to carry it. This is done,
however, without interrupting any speech in actual course of
delivery, and when the vote to close the debate is passed each
side has one member represented in a final speech on the ques
tion. (Ibid., p. 409.)
BELGIUM.
^
“ In Belgium they have the cloture, and if the prime minister
and president of the Chamber are satisfied that there is need of
closing the debate a hint is given to some member to raise the
cry of ‘ La cloture,’ after a member of the opposition has con- .
eluded his speech, and upon the demand of 10 members, grant
ing permission, however, to speak for or against the motion
under restrictions. The method here does not prevent any rea
sonable debate, but permits a termination of the debate by the
will of the majority. The same rule is followed in the Senate
of Belgium. (Dickinson’s Rules and Procedure of Foreign Par
liaments, p. 420.)
81722— 14548
■
J
56
DUXMARK.
“ In Denmark also they have the cloture, which can be pro
posed by the president of the Danish chambers, which is de
cided by the chamber without debate. Fifteen members of the
Landsthing may demand the cloture. (Ibid., p. 422.)
X ETHERLANDS.
“ In both houses of the Parliament of Netherlands they have
the cloture. Five members of the First Chamber may propose
it and five members may propose it in the Second Chamber.
They have the majority rule. (Ibid., p. 461.)
PORTUGAL.
“ In Portugal they have the cloture in both chambers, and de
bate may be closed by a special motion, without discretion. In
the upper house they permit two to speak in favor of and two
against it. The cloture may be voted. (Ibid., p. 469.)
SPAIN.
“ The cloture in Spain may be said to exist indirectly, and to
result from the action allowed the president on the order of
parliamentary discussion. (Ibid., p. 477.)
SWITZERLAND.
*j:
“ The cloture exists in Switzerland both in the Conseil des
Etatc and Conseil National.”
Mr. GALLINGER. Has the Senator the rules or the law gov
erning the Canadian Parliament?
Mr. OWEN. No; I have not.
Mr. GALLINGER. They have no previous question, I be
lieve; they have unlimited debate.
Mr. OWEN. They have no need for it, as there is unanimity
of sentiment and reciprocal courtesy in their comparatively
small Parliament.
Mr. GALLINGER. They succeeded in defeating the reci
procity bill because of that fact.
Mr. OWEN. Oh, I think not “ because of that fact,” Mr.
President. Now. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of
the Senate to an editorial from one of the greatest journals of
the country that I think is worthy of very respectful attention,
the New York World of January 29, 1915:
SET THE SENATE FREE.
The Republican minority in the Senate which is attempting to talk
the ship-purchase bill to death is also attempting to talk majority rule
to death. If by its filibuster it can prevent action before the expiration
of Congress on March 4, it will have defeated majority rule as em
phatically as would gunmen at a polling place who drove intending
voters away from the ballot box.
It is claimed on behalf of this minority that it is exercising the right
of debate and merely asserting the time-honored privileges of the Senate.
In truth, it is preventing reasonable debate, and the privileges to which
it refers ought to be protected from abuse, as they have been by other
legislative bodies. The British House of Commons, the mother of par
liaments, exceedingly jealous of every real right and privilege turottles those who would throttle it—
I commend that sentiment to the attention of the Senate of
the United States—
The American House of Representatives has not once been coerced by
minority since the Reed rules were established 25 years ago.
Evidently the time must soon come when a courageous majority of
the Senate will emancipate itself from a thraldom humiliating alike to
itself and to the people. Every right properly belonging to minorities
must be safeguarded, but no minority has a right to rule, no minority
has a right to establish by indirection policies which it has not the votes
81722— 14548
a
57
to carry, and no minority anywhere In this country, except in the United
States Senate, maintains such a pretense.
The seventeenth amendment, providing for the popular election of
Senators, was a Democratic measure in its origin, and to the present
Democratic administration fell the honor of proclaiming its adoption.
W hy should not the same party complete the reform by such a revision
of the Senate rules as to strip of power those who obstruct the popular
will lawfully expressed?
Now, Mr. President, I want to say just one or two words
before I close. Some of our Democratic brethren in the South,
still haunted by the old fear of a force bill led by the Senator
from Massachusetts [Mr. L o d g e I, believe that it would be dan
gerous to abandon the alleged right of the minority to conduct
an endless filibuster and thereby obstruct anything to which
the minority seriously objects. What I want to call to the
attention of the Senate is that under the change o f the Con
stitution providing for the direct election o f Senators by popu
lar vote the Senate of the United States never can again be
made the instrumentality of privilege or plutocracy or monop
oly or organized greed; never can again, by a majority of this
body, be controlled against the interests and the welfare of the
common people of this country. The majority always in the
future, till time shall be no more, will represent in truth the
sovereignty of the common people of this country. That being
so, I do not see how a man who is a heartfelt Democrat can
reconcile it to his conscience to put in the hands of those who
are at heart opposed to the sovereignty of the people the right
to obstruct their will and prevent legislation which the people
desire.
I have said on the floor to the Senator from New York [Mr.
B o o t ] that this filibuster was preventing the presentation of
the rural credits bill. What is the use of a committee bringing
forward a bill that has no possible chance of consideration? If
that were possible now, if we had a reasonable cloture, the
Banking and Currency Committee could get together and in all
probability agree upon some measure acceptable to them, ac
ceptable to the Senate, and acceptable to the country. But that
is a small part of the terrible harm being done. This fili
buster is not only preventing the rural credits bill from be
ing considered; it is preventing this whole calendar, page after
page, of listed bills that are important to the country, from
receiving any consideration at all. This body is presenting the
strange, unth'nkable, sad spectacle to the country that a
majority is willing to stay here all day and all night, night
after night, in order to exercise the constitutional privilege of
voting their wishes as representatives of the people of the
United States, while an organized filibuster prevents the ma
jority rule; prevents even a vote.
We can not consider rural credits, good roads, waterways,
justice to labor, the employment of the unemployed, the public
health, and the many vital questions affecting the conservation
and development of human life and energy. We are paralyzed
by partisan bigotry and ambition.
I say to the Senate that the people of the United States are
not going to submit to this wrong any more. It is an outrage
on justice; it is shameful; it is despicable; and no words within
the scope of a parliamentary language are strong enough to ex
press my condemnation of it.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
81722— 14548
58
AD D EN D U M .
[From the North American Review of November, 1803.]
T h e S t ru g g le in t h e S e n a t e ,
o b s t r u c t io n in t h e s e n a t e .
Senator H e n r y C a b o t L od ge , o f Massachusetts.]
ii.
[B y
Parliamentary obstruction has of late years engaged public attention
to a degree quite unusual for a subject so technical in its nature.
When the Reed rules, which first brought the subject into prominence in
this country, were under discussion, I pointed out in an article in the
Nineteenth Century that the question was widespread and general and
in no sense local or peculiar to the United States. A t that time the
Democratic orators and the Democratic newspapers seemed to think
that the effort to do away with parliamentary obstruction in the House
of Representatives was a malignant invention of the Republican Party
and particularly of Mr. Reed. If they had taken the trouble to inform
themselves— a form of mental exercise in which they rarely indulge— ■
they would have discovered that it was nothing of the sort.
They
would have learned what is now evident to all men that the Republican
reform of the rules of the House was but part of a general movement
against an abuse which in the process of time had become intolerable.
Not only in many States of the Union but in England also the matter
of parliamentary obstruction had reached the proportion of a great and
a very grave public question.
This was neither accidental nor the
result of partisanship.
It was the outgrowth of conditions which had
been slowly developed.
The English-speaking race are the originators of free representative
government.
Among them this great system has grown to maturity
and by them its details have been gradually elaborated.
The funda
mental principles of popular representation and of free speech, of the
control of taxation, and of public expenditures, were established long
since as the result of many hard-fought battles. W ith this development
of representative government there should have gone hand in hand a
development of the rules by which the representative bodies transacted
their business. This, however, did not occur. As so often happens in
history, the substance of things changed, but the forms survived.
W hile the power and the business of representative bodies both in
England and the United States expanded enormously, the rules in
accordance with which these powers were exercised and this business
transacted remained unaltered. Ordinarily forms are not of much con
sequence provided the essence of things is preserved, but in this in
stance it happened that forms and rules were of vital importance, al
though it is only very recently that this fact has been fully and prop
erly realized.
The rules and practices of the Congress of the United States and of
the House of Commons were adopted under conditions widely different
from those which exist to-day.
They were formed for representative
bodies, in this country at least, much smaller in number, and for the
management of the public affairs of small populations, with industrial
and commercial interests absolutely insignificant when compared with
the vast volume of business to-day, quickened as it now is by the tele
graph and the railroad, and beating with a pulsation which is felt in
every corner of the globe within 24 hours. The result has been that the
old rules and forms have not only proved inadequate for the transaction
of business, but have furnished the means for indefinite resistance to
action. When parliamentary rules were first formulated, the preserva
tion of freedom of debate was rightly considered to be of the last im
portance, and, so far as these original rules, which were in great de
gree haphazard, could be said to have any principle, the protection of
freedom of debate was their controlling purpose. All danger to freedom
of debate in English-speaking countries at least has long since van
ished, and the tendency of the old system is to encourage debate, of
which there is now too much, and to prevent action, of which there is
now too little.
The primary and the only proper and intelligent object of all par
liamentary law and rules is to provide for and to facilitate the ordi
nary action of public business.
When any set of parliamentary rules
ceases to accomplish this object they have become an abuse— and an
abuse of the worst kind. They not only prevent action, but, what is
far worse, they destroy responsibility ; for, if a minority can prevent
action, the m ajority, which is entitled to rule and is intrusted with
power, is at once divested of all responsibility, the great safeguard of
free representative institutions.
81722— 14548
59
This question has been fought out in the English House of Commons
and the passage of the home rule bill is conclusive evidence that the
system of enforcing action is not only necessary in England, but that
it is finally and firmly established. The same battle has been fought
out also, and the same result attained, in our own House of Repre
sentatives.
The great reform which Mr. Reed carried through and
which marks an epoch in parliamentary government in the United
States has been in principle finally established.
Received at the mo
ment with much passionate oratory and many loud objurgations, such
as always accompany the onward march and the ultimate triumph of a
great reform, it has at last prevailed. As the dust of that memorable
conflict cleared away, it was discovered that Mr. Reed had only been
enforcing principles which were accepted in nearly every other parlia
mentary body in the world and that he had not invented them himself
for the mere gratification of a tyrannical spirit. Then it was further
disco.ered that his methods, instead of being illegal and unconstitu
tional, had received the sanction of every judicial body before which
they had been brought, and they were finally upheld by the unanimous
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The last stage, the acceptance of the reform by the opposite political
party, has just been passed.
Mr. Speaker Crisp, with a large Demo
cratic majority at his back, has enforced Mr. Reed’s principles by stop
ping dilatory motions and bringing the House to a vote. The only dif
ference lias been that Mr. Reed put his principles into practice under
accepted methods and in accordance with parliamentary law, while Mr.
Crisp very unnecessarily, because no such violence was required, en
forced action with entire disregard of the usual and proper forms. He
is not, however, to be too severely criticized for this.
It was quite
natural that the Democratic Party in the House should writhe at
adopting the principles and carrying into effect the very methods which
they had denounced so exuberantly only three years ago.
They ap
peared to think that they could get around by some bypath to the Re
publican result, and thus escape a march through the valley of humilia
tion, if they discarded the forms under which their adversaries had
performed the same work. Unfortunately such evasions are never pos
sible and the valley of humiliation can not be avoided by those who
have opposed what is righteous, and then, after a short interval, have
accepted righteousness for their own purposes. In any event the result
is the same. The right of the majority to rule, and to pass after due
debate such measures as it secs fit, has been firmly established in the
House of Representatives.
As a practical public question in the United States, parliamentary ob
struction has now shifted to the Senate, where it has aroused lately the
keenest public interest owing to the condition of business and the in
tense eagerness of the country for the passage of some measure of re
lief. The case in the Senate is very different in many particulars from
what it was either in the House of Commons or the House of Repre
sentatives. The Senate of the United States is still a small b ody: it
has great powers conferred upon it by the Constitution and weighty
responsibility.
It is properly very conservative in its habits and very
slow to change those habits in any direction.
There could be no
better example of this than in its parliamentary procedure. The rules
of the Senate are practically unchanged from what they were at the
beginning.
They are the same now to all intents and purposes as
when they were first adopted more than a hundred years ago. There
has never been in the Senate any rule which enabled the majority to
close debate or compel a vote.
The previous question, which existed
in the earliest years, and was abandoned in 180G, was the previous
question of England and not that with which every one is familiar
to-day in our House of Representatives. It was not in practice a form
of closure and it is therefore correct to say that the power of closing
debate in the modern sense has never existed in the Senate.
The rules of the Senate are few and simple. Formed for the use of
a body of 26 Senators, they have continued in force unchanged, until
they now govern the deliberations of 88. That rules so simple should
have worked so well during so long a period with an increasing number
of Senators and an enormous growth in the volume of business is no
slight tribute to the character of the body which has worked under
them. But they are now beginning to show the same defects and abuses,
arising from the same causes, which have produced such fundamental
changes in larger representative bodies.
The rules of the Senate, providing for no form of compulsion, rest
necessarily on courtesy. In other words, as there is no power to compel
action, it is assumed that the need for compulsion will never arise.
81722— 14548
60
For this reason, obstruction in the Senate, when it has occurred, has
never taken the form of dilatory motions and continual roll calls, which
have been the accepted method of filibustering in the House.
The
weapon of obstruction in the Senate is debate, upon which the Senate
rules place no check whatever.
Practically speaking, under the rules,
or rather the courtesy of the Senate, each Senator can speak as often
and at as great length as he chooses. There is not only no previous
question to cut him off, but a time can not even be set" for taking a
vote, except by unanimous consent.
This is all very well in theory,
and there is much to be said for the maintenance of a system, in one
branch at least of the Government, where debate shall be entirely un
trammeled. But the essence of a system of courtesy is that it should
be the same at all points. The two great rights in our representative
bodies are voting and debate.
If the courtesy of unlimited debate Is
granted it must carry with it the reciprocal courtesy of permitting a
vote after due discussion.
If this is not the case the system is im
possible. Of the two rights, moreover, that of voting is the higher and
more important. W e ought to have both, and debate certainly in ample
m easure; but, if we are forced to choose between them, the right of
action must prevail over the right of discussion. To vote without de
bating is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile. The dif
ficulty in the Senate to-day is that, while the courtesy which permits
unlimited debate is observed, the reciprocal courtesy, which should in
sure the opportunity to vote, is wholly disregarded.
If the system of reciprocal courtesy could be reestablished and ob
served, there need be no change in the Senate rules. As it is, there
must be a change, for the delays which now take place are discrediting
the Senate and this is something greatly to be deplored. The Senate was
perhaps the greatest single achievement of the makers of the Constitu
tion. It is one of the strongest bulwarks of our system of government,
and anything which lowers it in the eyes of the people is a most serious
matter. How the Senate may vote on any given question at any given
time is of secondary importance, but when it is seen that it is unable
to take any action at all the situation becomes of the gravest character.
A body which can not govern itself will not long hold the respect of the
people who have chosen it to govern the country.
No extreme or violent change is needed in order to remedy the exist
ing condition of affairs.
A simple rule giving the majority power to
fix a time for taking a vote upon any measure which has been before
the Senate and under discussion, say for 20 days, would be all sufficient.
Such a change should be made and such a rule passed, for the majority
ought to have and must have full power and responsibility.
On this point o f the power of the majority, however, there is a great
deal of popular misconception.
It is customary to assail with bitter
reproaches, as we have seen during the struggle over silver repeal, the
minority who are resisting action.
This is putting the blame in the
wrong place. The minority may be justly censured for not conforming
to a system of courtesy, but when that system has been overthrown, as
Is the case in the Senate in regard to voting and debate, the fault is no
longer theirs.
No minority is ever to blame for obstruction.
If the
rules permit them to obstruct, they are lawfully entitled to use those
rules in order to stop a measure which they deem injurious. The blame
for obstruction rests with the majority, and if there is obstruction it is
because the majority permit it. The majority to which I here refer is
the party majority in control of the Chamber. They may be divided on
a given measure, but they, and they alone, are responsible for the gen
eral conduct of business. They, and they alone, can secure action and
Initiate proceedings to bring the body whose machinery they control to
a vote. The long delav on the repeal of the purchasing clause of the
silver act of 1890 has been due, without any reference to their internal
divisions on the pending question, solely to the Democratic majority
as a whole in full control of the Chamber and of the machinery of
legislation. There never was a time when they could not have brought
about a vote with the assistance of the Chair, whose occupant was also
of their party, if, as a party, they had only chosen to do so.
No further argument is, I think, needed to show the necessity of
some rule which, after allowing the most liberal latitude of debate will
vet enable the majority of the Senate to compel a vote. The prospects,
however, of any such change are not very promising. It is not prob
able that any form of closure will be adopted bv the Senate for some
time to come.
It will certainly never be attained unless the popular
demand for it is not only urgent but intelligent. Newspapers and peo
pie generally have a way of rising up and demanding that filibustering
be put down and closure enforced whenever some measure in which
81722— 14548
61
they are specially Interested at the moment is obstructed. On the other
hand, filibustering is often regarded as very patriotic by people who do
not want a given measure to pass.
Many of the newspapers, for ex
ample, which have been shouting themselves hoarse over the obstruc
tion to silver repeal in the Senate, loudly applauded preciselv the same
methods of obstruction when directed against the Federal elections bill a
few years ago.
It is this fact which takes all weight from the de
mands of the most vociferous shouters for action at the present time.
Obstruction must be always good and proper or always bad and im
proper.
It can not be sometimes good and sometimes bad as a prin
ciple of action. If the power to close debate is righteous for one meas
ure it is righteous for a l l ; and until that principle is accepted there i 3
no possibility of reform. For example, the Democratic majoritv in the
Senate refuses to change the rules in order to pass silver repeal
They
can not then, go on and introduce closure to pass the Federal elections
bill and the tariff. They must apply closure to all or none
The only way in which proper rules for the transaction of business
in the Senate can be obtained will be through the action of a party
committed as a party to the principle that the majoritv must rule and
that the parliamentary methods of the Senate must conform to that
principle. The change must also be made at the beginning of the ses
sion, so as to apply to all measures alike which are to come before Con
gress, and it must be carried and established on its own merits as a
general principle of government and not to suit a particular exigency
Whenever this reform is made it will come and it can come only in this
way.
H
81722—14548
o
enky
Ca b o t L odge.
HON.
ROBERT
L.
OWEN.
Thursday, December 9, 1913.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, had under consideration
the bill (H . R. 7837) to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve
hanks, for furnishing an elastic currency, affording means of rediscount
ing commercial paper, and to establish a more effective supervision of
banking in the United States, and for other purposes.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, during the last 10 days Senators
on the opposite side of the aisle have frequently made it a mat
ter of entertainment to be making the point of no quorum for
the obvious purpose of delaying and wasting time. It is per
fectly well known to every Senator who has made the point of
no quorum that the Members of this body are in the cloakroom
or in the immediate vicinity if they are not on the floor. I be
lieve it has only occurred once, or perhaps twice, that it took
some minutes to obtain a quorum. The country might as well
observe what the meaning of this is. and I wish to call the at
tention of the country to the attitude of Senators who are
wasting the time o f this body.
Mr. BRISTOW. Mr. President-----The VICE PRESIDENT. Does the Senator from Oklahoma
yield to the Senator from Kansas?
Mr. OWEN. I decline to be interrupted, Mr. President.
Mr. BRISTOW. I thought the Senator would in making such
remarks as those.
Mr. OWEN. Yes; I do; especially by the Senator from
Kansas, whose lack of self-restraint has been so obvious.
The Congress of the United States has a vast work to per
form. This currency bill is only a part of it; the tariff bill was
only a part of it. Under the head o f currency matters we have
still many other things which are necessary to be done by Con
gress. We should have a codification of the national bank acts;
we should have laws passed controlling the abuses, the outrages,
of the various stock exchanges, of the exchanges that gamble
with food products, with agricultural products, and help to fix
high prices upon this country. We should pass laws that are
necessary to control the abuses of the clearing houses.
We should pass laws prohibiting interlocking directorates,
which control banking systems and trust companies and great
industrial companies and railways, linked together on a gigan
tic scale and thus making effective private monopoly. We
ought to pass laws establishing an agricultural credit system
in this country, a matter of the most serious importance in
promoting the food products o f this Nation and in promoting
the production of the raw materials which come out o f the soil.
We ought to pass the necessary measures which will control the
abuses of private monopoly in this country, and yet day after
24417— 12647
3
V
4
day is wasted by idle talk upon the floor of the Senate and by
call after call for a quorum, when it is perfectly well known
that a qiiorum will immediately respond to the roll call. We
ought to pass laws solving the problem of the high cost of living,
which is making the ordinary citizen of this country tremble
under the load he carries.
We ought to pass laws providing for good roads in this
country; we ought to pass laws providing for the develop
ment of our national waterways. I have some other things
to present which this Congress ought to consider and act on. and
I propose to place them in the R ecord now for the information
of the country— not for the information of the Senate, for the
Senate knows perfectly well what they are. We ought to pass
a law establishing an independent bureau of public health to
protect the public health of this country, which 1 . w is simply
under the jurisdiction of a branch of the Treasury Department,
relatively obscure, smothered, ineffective, although not without
much value. We ought to pass laws protecting child labor in
this country; we ought to pass a proper employees’ insurance
system; we ought to pass proper laws for the compensation of
workmen; we ought to pass laws establishing proper safety
appliances and steel cars on the railway systems of the country;
we ought to pass a law for the “ probation of convicts ” for the
benefit of young men who are convicted for the first time, young
men who are sent to their ruin by the cruel hand of society, be
cause they make a single mistake.
Year after year I have tried to secure the passage of such a
bill through the Senate, and have made no progress. We ought
to have cold-storage legislation; we ought to have legislation to
bring about pure fabrics and honest measures of goods that are
sold to our people; we ought to have a better system for the
proper control of railway rates; we ought to have a better sys
tem for the control o f the issue of stock and bonds, so that the
people of this country may not be unfairly taxed by the issue
of fraudulent watered securities; we ought to establish voca
tional education in this country, so as to teach the boys and
girls, the young men and women, of this country how to make a
living.
How shall we ever consider these things w'hen day after day
is used up in idle debate, without any economy whatever of the
time o f the Senate? That is the reason why these seats of
Senators are vacated. It is hecause Senators who have made up
their minds, have studied the question, do not want to stay a
whole w e e k listening to a debate which no longer instructs or
interests. That is evidently the reason why Senators vacate
their seats—because the debate on the floor of the Senate has
become a farce.
We ought to establish postal telegraphs and postal telephones
cheap and at the convenient service of the people instead of a
monopoly controlled by a few men unfairly taxing the people
and giving them indifferent and poor service.
The Government of the United States ought to own plants
for making its own armor plate, for making its own powder,
for making its owrn guns and materials o f war, and for build
ing its own battleships. We have not time even to discuss such
questions, but have spent about 10 hours during the last week
debating a motion to meet at 10 o’clock in the morning.
24417— 12647
y
We ought to have proper legislation to build up the merchant
marine of the American Nation. Our flag is practically never
seen in foreign ports, and hardly ever seen in our own ports.
We ought to take steps, through the Legislature of this Nation,
in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, to promote,
bring about, and establish universal peace, which we could do
if we spent the same amount o f money and energy in promoting
peace that we do in building navies and in supporting armies.
Nevertheless, until we have a better condition, we ought to
have time to consider the naval program and the development
o f our military forces.
We ought to have time to discuss on the floor of the Senate
the right of the women o f this country to the equal privilege of
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This question affects
the right of 45.000,000 Americans. Yet we talk from noon till
10 or 11 o’clock at night on Hetch Hetchy, a serious waste of
time, because two or three days would be sufficient for the
Frisco water supply.
We ought to have an opportunity to discuss upon the floor
licentiousness in the public press, which under present condi
tions is able to give publicity broadcast and wholesale and con
tinuously to things that are untrue and against the public in
terest. The fountains of information for the people are fre
quently poisoned by reckless publications that ought to be
guided by law along the lines of decency and moderation, at the
same time that full liberty of the press is preserved. We have
not time to debate such questions, but can discuss questions of
order at length.
We shall have to pass in the Senate a thousand million dol
lars of appropriations, and the time will come in the Senate
when in a few hours you will see rushed through this body
appropriation bills carrying $100,000,000 with very little analyti
cal discussion. We never have had time even to pass on the ques
tion of a budget or to take the necessary steps to adequately
provide for the adequate economy and efficiency of the Govern
ment.
We have had volumes of reports on economy and efficiency.
I have tried to read them. I have read them in part. I doubt
if many Senators on the floor have had time to read these re
ports, which have cost this Nation thousands and thousands of
dollars. Yet the recommendations there would seem to be of
great value in promoting both economy and efficiency of gov
ernment.
We ought to have a national progressive inheritance tax as
a part of the fiscal system, as every country in Eurojie has.
because no State can make it effective.
We ought to have the “ gateway amendment” passed by
which to make comparatively easy the amendment of the Con
stitution o f the United States by the people, because whenever
you coine into a condition where a vested wrong is established
you will find always that the Constitution is urged to prevent a
remedy for the people. We could not pass an income tax be
cause the Constitution forbade it, according to the interpreta
tion of a divided court.
We ought to pass an act providing for a presidential primary
for the nomination and election of Presidents.
24417— 12647
We ought to have an act passed that will establish the im
provement of judicial processes in this country, by which the
people may obtain quick justice and cheap justice.
We ought to have laws improving the conditions o f labor.
We ought to have a legislative reference bureau and drafting
division for the Senate and for the Congress. It is on the
calendar. Every time it is brought up objection is made to its
consideration.
We ought to have the systematic development o f our water
powers and laws passed to encourage and direct them.
We ought to have laws passed for the proper conservation
and use of our national forests and of our national minerals,
laws that will enable the living generation to enjoy them, to use
them, and to conserve them.
We ought to have our patent laws perfected.
There are innumerable questions affecting the welfare of this
Nation, in the way of social and industrial reforms, which
ought to be considered by the Senate. The time of the Senate
ought not to be wasted, and I want to put in the R ecord my
protest against it.
I do not make these observations because of the banking and
currency bill. The banking and currency bill is only one of the
many things which ought to be passed by the Congress.
The reforms have been pledged or suggested in various plat
forms, not only Democratic platforms but other platforms, rep
resenting large groups of people.
I have in my hand a splendid statement of the various needed
social and industrial reforms, which was put into the platform
of the Progressive Party o f the Nation, a party which regis
tered 4,000,000 votes.
It proposes the conservation of human resources through en
lightened measures of social and industrial justice.
It proposes effective legislation, looking to:
The prevention of industrial accidents;
Occupational diseases, overwork;
Involuntary unemployment and other injurious effects inci
dent to modern industry;
The fixing o f minimum safety and health standards for the
various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of
State and Nation, including the Federal control over interstate
commerce and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;
The prohibition of child labor;
Minimum wTage standards for working women, to provide a
“ living scale” in all industrial occupations;
The prohibition o f night work for women and the establish
ment of an eight-hour day for women and young persons;
One day’s rest in seven for all wageworkers;
The 8-hour day in continuous 24-hour industries;
The abolition of the convict contract-labor system, substitut
ing a system of prison production for governmental consumption
only, and the application o f prisoners’ earnings to the support
of their dependent fam ilies;
Publicity as to wages, hours, and conditions of labor; full
reports upon industrial accidents and diseases; and the oi>ening
to public inspection o f all tallies, weights, measures, and check
systems on labor products;
Standards of compensation for death by industrial accident
and injury and trade diseases, which will transfer the burden
of lost earnings from the families of working people to the in
dustry, and thus to the community;
The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness,
irregular employment, and old age, through the adoption of a
system of social insurance adapted to American use;
The development of the creative labor power of America
by lifting the last load of illiteracy from American youth and
establishing continuous schools for industrial education under
public control and encouraging agricultural education and dem
onstration in rural schools;
The establishment of industrial research laboratories to put
the methods and discoveries of science at the service of Amer
ican producers.
These are some o f the social and industrial reforms which
ought to be considered, which ought to be provided for. as far
as the Federal Government can do so or promote them. And
I want to protest again against the waste of time in the United
States Senate. The time has come for cloture in the Senate
of the United States. The time has come when Senators who
want to address the Senate upon a subject shall be given a
reasonable time within which to do it, and then yield the floor
to other Senators.
1*4417— 12(547
The Commission Form o f Government for M unicipalities
as an Agency fo r the R estoration o f Integrity and Efficiency
o f Government and the T erm ination o f C orruption in City,
State, and N ation, and the Overthrow o f the Undue Influ
ence o f Commercialism in Government.
SPEECH
H O N . R O B E R T L. O W E N
OF OKLAHOMA.
IN THE
S E N A T E O F T IIE U N I T E D S T A T E S
FRIDAY, JULY 7, 1911
W A S H IN G T O N
1911
2165— 101S8
SPEECH
OF
IION.
EOBEET
L. O W E N .
On the subject of municipal government.
w
Mr. OWEN said:
Mr. P r e s id e n t : The progressive movement in this country has
for its object the overthrow of commercialism in government
and the restoration of equality of opportunity and of the rights
of human beings in preference, where the choice must be made,
to the rights merely of property accumulation. The chief pur
pose of the progressive movement is to overthrow the chief
agency of commercialism in government, machine politics and
the rule of the minority through corrupt practices, and to re
store the rule of the majority through honest registration laws
and election laws. This is to be accomplished by the passage
of certain tried and tested statutes, including, particularly, the
initiative, the referendum, and the recall, a thoroughgoing
corrupt-practices act, complete publicity of all public business,
and including the commission form of government for munici
palities, or the short-ballot system. The commission form of
government may be properly regarded as a very important
auxiliary in the progressive movement.
The commission form o f government has a national value and
a direct hearing upon the integrity of the election of Senators
and Congressmen, because it is an important agency in over
throwing corrupt machine politics in municipalities and cities.
The proportion of inhabitants living in cities, as compared to the
inhabitants of the United States, is 53.7 per cent, not counting
towns of less than 2,500 inhabitants. I f corrupt governm ent
CAN BE TERMINATED IN CITIES, IT CAN NOT SURVIVE IN THE STATES
or i n t h e N a t io n .
The relative urban and suburban population of the different
States I submit as Exhibit A.
Machine politics and their centers of activity are in the cities,
and if corrupt political organization can be overthrown in cities
it will vgo far toward establishing integrity of government
throughout the States and throughout the Nation, as machine
politics do not easily flourish among country people who are not
so easily reached or so easily influenced by machine methods.
The commission form of government eliminates mere partisan
politics in cities, towns, and villages in the government o f such
municipalities. The commission form of government usually
carries with it the initiative, referendum, and recall, giving
home government popular government, the people’s rule en
abling the citizens of each town to control the governing busi
ness in that town. It enables them, through the initiative, ref
erendum, and recall, to initiate and pass any law they do want,
including corrupt-practices prevention acts, and veto any law
21G5— 10188
3
4
they do not want, such as the granting of franchises of value
without consideration, and enables them to recall inefficient or
dishonest officials.
For these reasons I have thought it worth while to call to
the attention of the Senate and of the country the importance
o f the commission form o f city government as an agency in
restoring integrity of government and overthrowing the cor
ruption and inefficiency which have so seriously invaded the
governing function under color o f partisan zeal.
WHAT THE COMMISSION FORM OF C I T Y GOVERNMENT IS.
The commission form of government, as usually understood,
may be illustrated with the system adopted in Des Moines,
Iowa, under the act of the general assembly of that State (E x
hibit B ) and the charter of that city (Exhibit C ).
The general plan is that the citizens by primary may nomi
nate candidates for mayor and four commissioners, who shall
hare complete charge o f town business—legislative, executive,
and judicial. Any person can be nominated by a petition of 25
citizens. The 10 candidates having the highest vote at the pri
mary two weeks later are submitted to the citizens for an elec
tion, and the 5 candidates having the highest votes at this elec
tion comprise the city council, with full powers—legislative, ex
ecutive, and judicial. They manage the business as completely
as the board o f directors could manage the business of a bank.
There are five departments, as follows:
First. A department o f public affairs.
Second. A department of accounts and finance.
Third. A department o f public safety.
Fourth. A department of streets and improvements.
Fifth. A department o f parks and public property.
The mayor, by virtue of his office, has charge o f the depart
ment o f public affairs, with general supervision over the other
departments, and receives a salary of $3,500. The other com
missioners receive a salary o f $3,000. The council, by ma
jority vote, appoints all other officials of the town— city clerk,
solicitor, tax assessor, police judge, treasurer, auditor, civil en
gineer, city physician, marshal, chief of fire department, street
commissioner, library trustees, and all other necessary officers
and assistants. These selections are made under a board of
civil service commissioners, who conduct examinations of a
practical character to determine the fitness o f applicants. Each
commissioner appoints the subordinate employees in his own
department and each commissioner is held responsible for the
successful management of his department.
Extreme pains are taken to prevent fraud in the elections.
For instance, the fullest publicity is required o f campaign
funds. Both the source and the manner o f expenditures are
required to be reported under oath. No officer or employee
is permitted to be interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with the city or in any public-service corporation, or to
accept any free service therefrom. All council meetings to
which any person not a city officer is admitted must be open to
the public.
“All franchises or right to use the streets, highways, or public
places of the city can be granted, renewed, or extended only by
ordinance, and every franchise or grant for interurban or
2165— 10188
5
street railways, gas or water works, electric light or power
plants, heating plants, telegraph or telephone systems, or
public-service utilities must be authorized or approved by a
majority of the electors voting thereon at a general or special
election.
“Every motion, resolution, and ordinance of the council must
be in writing, and the vote of every member of the council, for
and against it, must be recorded. The couucil is required to
print and effectively distribute each mouth, in pamphlet form, a
detailed, itemized statement of all receipts and expenses and a
summary o f its proceedings during the preceding mouth. At the
end of each year the council must cause a full and complete ex
amination o f all the books and accounts of the city to be made
by competent accountants and publish the report in pamphlet
form.
“ Every ordinance or resolution appropriating money or order
ing any street improvements or sewers, or making or authorizing
any contract, or granting any franchises must be complete in its
final form and remain on file with the city clerk for public in
spection at least one week before its final passage or adoption,
and must be at all times open to public inspection.” (Ham
ilton.)
Nothing is permitted to be done in secrecy or in the dark.
The public business is public.
PARTISANSHIP IN CITY BUSINESS ELIMINATED.
Partisanship is eliminated. No party emblems arc permitted
on the ticket, but the candidates are listed in serial order, with
out party designation, and are nominated and elected as far as
possible on the ground of personal fitness. In this way partisan
ship is carefully and deliberately eliminated, as far as prac
ticable.
Ward lines are abolished in the choice of city commissioners,
so that each citizen votes for every commissioner, both in nomi
nating and in electing him.
TIIE WAItD SYSTEM ABOLISHED.
The abolition of the ward system is essential to the success
ful establishment of the commission form of government. The
ward system in the past has been peculiarly injurious to good
government because “ it perverts the political education of the
electors and encourages a local selfishness destructive of the
general and ultimately of the local interests as well. The ward
system leads to the nomination of a ward boss, who, under color
of intense zeal for that ward and under color of being a great
advocate of a political party and by petty ward politics, gets
himself elected and tries to keep himself in power by get
ting things for that ward, more than it would be equitably
entitled to and at the expense of the balance of the city. This
policy leads to unscrupulous men making combinations in
the council, trading with each other, and taking advantage
of the portions of the city whose representatives are more
scrupulous.
A city is best governed w hose governm ent deals with
the city as a body unit and where its general interests are
held param ount to local, private, or ward selfishness.
Citizens at large nominate men who would not be nominated
by the ward system, and thus narrow or unscrupulous men
21G5— 10188
are prevented from so easily entering the council. It pre
vents wards trading in the council at the expense o f the
city. It prevents extravagance in wards by virtue of such
trading.
The abolition o f the ward system elevates the character of
the officials of the city, and what is far more important, it
elevates the electorate o f the city by making the citizens feel
that they have power to nominate and elect the entire govern
ing board of the city.
We observe in New York City recently a ward boss giving
away 7,000 pairs o f shoes, apparently from pure benevolence,
but more likely for the reason that he could by this process
of commendable charity and open-hearted generosity control
7,000 votes in his ward and put himself in a position where he
could indirectly recoup himself with usury at the expense of
the taxpayers o f that great municipality.
THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF THE COMMISSION FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
The essential value and features of the commission form of
government are, roughly, as follow s:
First. Complete centralization and concentration of all poicer
and responsibility in a small council or commission, usually of
five members, doing away with the separation of powers into
the legislative, executive, and judicial. This is fundamental.
The commission is thus directly charged with and responsible
for the entire administration o f the city’s affairs.
Second. The members of the commission must be elected at
large arid not by wards, and therefore represent the city as a
whole, not by subdivisions.
Third. The members of the commission must be the only
elective officers of the city, and must have the power of ap
pointing all subordinate administrative officials.
Fourth. The commission must have the power of removing
subordinate administrative city officials at will.
Fifth. The commission should be subject to the initiative,
the referendum, and the recall, so that if the commission fails
to pass the laws the people do want, such laws can be passed
by the initiative petition; and so that if the commission pro
pose to pass any law the people do not want, they shall have
the right of veto by referendum petition; and so that, if a com
missioner proves to be inefficient or corrupt, his successor may
be nominated and he may be recalled by a special or general
election.
THE PROTEST.
A special provision o f the Des Moines charter enables the
citizens to prevent the council fastening objectionable legisla
tion upon the city by a protest of 25 per cent of the number
of electors previously voting for mayor. Upon the filing of this
protest the council must either reconsider and repeal the ordi
nance objected to or submit it to a vote o f the people for accept
ance or rejection.
THE RESULTS.
The result of this system has been to abolish the corrupt
ward system, with its mischievous waste, inefficiency, and dis
honesty. It has eliminated partisanship, and no longer can a
ward boss appeal to his fellow citizens to stand by him as the
exponent of “ the grand old party ” o f Lincoln, Grant, and
McKinley, nor can he appeal to the disciples of Thomas Jeffer2 1 6 5 — 10183
7
son with any better effect. His views on the tariff or currency
are not regarded as of any importance, but his relation to the
gamblers, the law-defying saloon keepers, the political jobbers,
public-service corporation and municipal contractors, and his
fitness to make a good municipal officer are closely scrutinized
by the great body of the citizens of the municipality.
The direct and undivided responsibility and the full power
placed in the hands of each commissioner obtains from him his
best efforts and the best results.
This system has reestablished popular supremacy in the
cities adopting it. There is no doubt that everything bad in
city politics is the work of the few and not of the many, and
that these few have been led by trained mercenaries, who have
paid themselves out of the public treasury, directly or indirectly,
for packing caucuses, padding registration lists, repeating, steal
ing or stuffing ballot boxes, perpetrating frauds in the casting
of votes, and doing the thousand and one more or less dis
reputable things which in American cities have been counted as
“ helping the party.”
The direct rule of the people has been established by the com
mission form of city government in lieu of all this. They have
under this system the right of direct nomination (selection)
and election of officials, freedom from fraud, complete publicity,
and they have the right of the initiative, referendum, protest,
and recall, compelling respect of the popular will, both affirma
tively aud negatively. In this manner the people are stimu
lated in a sense of civic righteousness and power and of personal
civic responsibility. It has established the rule o f the people
in town government and has dethroned the city boss and termi
nated corrupt ward and municipal partisan politics.
Of course, no city can rise higher than the level of its citizen
ship, but whatever the intelligence and conscience of the citi
zens of a town are capable of may be attained through this
improved method of governing municipalities.
Under this system the public business is conducted with effi
ciency, promptness, free from blackmail, and free from the
petty rascalities, free from the “ grand and petty larceny ” that
have heretofore characterized municipal councils. A request
of the commission can be acted upon in an hour, and it is not
necessary to run the gauntlet of a corrupt house and council
of the old city legislatures, with the long delays and blackmail
incident thereto.
Under the civil service, the city emploj’ees are chosen upon a
basis of merit aud actual worth and not as a reward for activ
ity in helping the ward boss to keep himself in power.
City franchises are safeguarded under this new system. It
is impossible for the council to sell a franchise by secret barter,
or to deliver such a franchise if sold, and no corrupt interest
can afford to buy or attempt to buy franchises under these
conditions, where delivery is impossible aud dangerous.
The causes of corruption are removed. The temptation to
corruption is removed. Powerful safeguards against corruption
are thus established.
The plan in actual operation has shown the most remarkable
results in clean streets and alleys, improved sidewalks and pav
ing, better administration of all public utilities, and freedom
from favoritism ; aud justice and common sense are in control.
2 1 6 5 — 10188
8
In Des Moines the old “ red-light ” district, which was owned
and controlled by a social-evil trust of “ appalling cruelty,
greed, and wickedness,” was turned into a respectable neigh
borhood by the vigor and vigilance of a well-directed police
force. The city offices are filled by men expert and capable of
rendering high-class services. The books and records have
been brought up to date and are kept in intelligible con
dition.
I will observe here that the cities which have adopted this
method have adopted in many cases a comparative uniformity
of bookkeeping, by which the condition of various departments
and services of municipalities are able to be compared one with
another, so that a city finding a very high cost in some par
ticular line as compared with other cities in the same depart
ment or service may make an inquiry into that particular
branch of the service. In that way, by concentrating attention
on defective services, they are able to eliminate the wasteful
ness by which their accounts have been run up in that special
branch of the administration. An immense saving of money
has been made, and the people are delighted with the splendid
results of the new government.
The elections have worked admirably. “ Not for a genera
tion has so little money been spent and never have the citi
zens been able to give their attention so undividedly to the
prime issues of a municipal campaign—the honesty, capacity,
and fidelity of those seeking public place.”
The success of the Des Moines system was due to the
activity, first, o f James H. Berry hill, o f Des Moines, who had
business interests in Galveston and who had seen the working
of the commission government in that city. The Des Moines
Register and Leader, the News, and the Capital, of which the
Hon. Lafayette Young, our recent colleague in the Senate, was
editor, are entitled to special credit, together with the Bar
Association of the State of Iowa and the public debates which
were held in this connection. It took the most resolute effort
for several years to accomplish this result and get over the
opposition of the old machine in Des Moines and Iowa and
their influence with the legislature, but, thanks to the patriotic
and good men of that State, the legislature gave the necessary
authority.
I submit results of the commission form of government
in Galveston and Houston, Tex., Leavenworth, Kans., Des
Moines and Cedar Rapids, Iowa, as given by Hamilton. (E x
hibit D.)
I submit also a list of over a hundred o f the cities which have
adopted this plan for the last two years. (Exhibit E.)
I expressly acknowledge indebtedness to John J. Hamilton
and his excellent work on the “ Dethronement of the City Boss ”
(Funk & W agn alls); to Ford H. MacGregor, Bulletin No. 423
of the University of W isconsin; to Prof. Frank Parsons’s “ The
City of the People,” published by C. F. Taylor, 1520 Chestnut
Street, Philadelphia, Pa.; “ The Digest of Short Ballot Char
ters,” by Charles A. Beard, Ph. D., The Short Ballot Organiza
tion, 383 Fourth Avenue, New York; and Buffalo Conference
for Good City Government, Clinton Rogers Woodruff, editor.
2 1 6 5 — 10188
9
The constitutionality of the Texas law giving municipalities
the right of recall, rendered by the civil court of appeals, I
submit as Exhibit F.
Seventy-four cities and towns in the State o f New York, I
am informed by the secretary of the Commission Government
Association of Buffalo, are considering this method, and a large
number of them have petitioned the New York Legislature for
the right of home government for cities. Up to this time, in
spite o f promises, those in control of the governing business,
including the bipartis.au machine men in New York State, have
denied them their just rights of local self-government, and it
will require a pitched battle with the forces of machine politics
to obtain this right for these cities, the chief of which is
Buffalo, with over 400,000 inhabitants.
The Short Ballot Organization, of which the Hon. Woodrow
Wilson, governor of New Jersey, is the president, has excited a
very great interest throughout the Union, and it is easily ap
plicable not only to cities, but also to counties and States, the
purpose being to concentrate the attention of the electorate upon
a few responsible men charged with the control o f policies and
administrative responsibility, so that the people may give their
concentrated attention to these few officials and chpose them
wisely.
It is impossible to have the people choose wisely when they
are called upon by the party bosses and party machines to vote
on 200 or 300 names at a time. Tammany Hall, for example,
has a committeeman for each 25 voters of New York City, a
committee so large that Madison Square Garden could not hold
it. Its primary ballot contains from 300 to a thousand names.
The consequence is that democracy is defeated and “ bossism ”
is enthroned.
Gov. Johnson, of California, put the matter in a nutshell in
his last annual message, when he said:
It is time we stopped scolding the voters for their inattention to the
offices at the foot of the ticket and cut the ballot down to the number
of officials that they will take the trouble to select. The job of reform
ing the voter is too big. He has a living io make and has to have some
fun as he goes along.
But the job of reforming the ballot is simple.
All that is needed is to cut out the offices that have to do merely with
the routine and clerical work and call on the voter to elect only those
that control policies.
Over 200 cities and towns have adopted some form o f this
improved method of city government within the last two years,
the list submitted being incomplete and imperfect.
I submit a form of ballot used by Grand Junction, Colo.,
which is the most improved form of municipal ballot that has
yet been adopted. The Grand Junction ballot gives the first,
second, and third choice to each citizen for the members of the
city council. If there are not a sufficient number of votes of
the first choice to give a majority of the votes, then the first and
second choices are added together. If that does not give a
majority, then the first, second, and third choices are added
together, which always results in a majority vote, so that it
requires no nomination and subsequent election. One election
Is enough. At one election the public officials are both nomi
nated and elected. It is economical and it is satisfactory in
its results and operation.
2 1 0 5 — 10188
10
□
Of f ic ia l B a l l o t .
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION, CITY OF GRAND JUNCTION,
COLO., NOVEMBER 2, A. D. 1909.
I n s t r u c t i o n s .— To vote fo r any person, make a cross ( X ) in ink in
the square in the appropriate column according to your choice, at the
right of the name voted for. Vote your first choice in the first column ;
vote your second choice in the second column ; vote any other choice in
the third colum n; vote only one first and only one second choice. Do
not vote more than one choice for one person, as only one choice will
count for any candidate by this ballot. Omit voting for one name for
each office if more than one candidate therefor. A ll distinguishing
marks make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this
ballot, return it and obtain another.
F o r C o m m is sio n e r o f P u b lic A ffairs:
1st
2d
c h o ic e . c h o ic e .
3d
c h o ic e .
T o ta ls .
D . W . A U P P E R L E ........................................... .
465
143
145
753
W . I I . B A N N I S T E R ...............................................
603
93
43
739
N . A . L O U G I I .............................................................
99
231
238
568
E . B . L U T E S ..............................................................
41
114
88
243
E D W I N . M . S L O C O M B .........................................
243
357
326
926
T H O S . M . T O D D ......................................................
362
293
396
1 ,0 5 1
No. 7G9.
Official ballot for election precinct No. 16, in Grand Junction, Mesa
County, Colo., Nov. 2, 1909.
H. F. V e r b e c k , City Clerk.
The following letter o f Karl A. Bickel, Esq., of Grand Junc
tion, Colo., explains its working:
S t a t e o f C ol o r a d o ,
L e g al D e p a r t m e n t , I n h e r it a n c e T a x D iv i s i o n .
Senator R o b e r t L. O w e n ,
Senate, Washington, D. C.
In re sample preferential ballot, with results in one set shown :
Had the election been conducted under the old-style plan, as is com
mon in 85 per cent of American cities, Bannister, the “ old-gang ” can
didate, would have been elected.
Ilad it been conducted along the
cumbersome Des Moines system, the race would have been between
Aupperle and Bannister. Yet when the people had fully and accurately
expressed themselves on all the candidates and demonstrated their full
choice, it was shown that Bannister was not within the first three of
being the most desired man, and that Aupperle did not have within 196
votes of a majority of all votes cast, and that Todd was the only man
of the six who did have the support of a m ajority of the voters— that
is. a. majority of the voters would rather have Todd elected than any
other man, although a large number of those who voted for Todd had
preferences above him. The preferential system keeps the whole people
organized to smash the organized minority and prevents minority rule.
There were not as many spoiled ballots as a result of the G. J. prefer
ential election than usual in the Australian-ballot elections.
K . A . B ic k e l .
Mr. President, I have submitted this matter because I regard
it as having very great influence upon the integrity of the
Government o f the United States. This method has been found
to work so well that, within the strict interpretation of what
might be called a commission form of government, there are
nearly 200 cities that have recently, within three years past,
adopted this method of governing in 27 States, and if it would not
weary the Senate I should like to call attention to some of them.
The two great cities of Alabama, for instance, Birmingham
and Montgomery.
21G5— 10188
11
In California, Santa Cruz, Berkeley, Modesto, Oakland, Saa
Diego, San Luis Obispo, Vallejo, and Monterey.
In Colorado, Colorado Springs, Grand Junction, and, I believe,
Denver now lias adopted it.
Idaho, Lewiston.
Illinois, Carbondale, Decatur, Dixon, Elgin, Hillsboro, Jack*
sonville, Kewanee, Moline, Ottawa, Pekin, Rochelle, Rock Island,
Springfield, Spring Valley, Waukegan, and Clinton.
Iowa, Burlington, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, Des Moines, Fort
Dodge, Keokuk, Marshalltown, and Sioux City.
Kansas, Anthony, Abilene, Coffeyville, Cherryvale, Caldwell,
Council Grove, Dodge City, Emporia, Eureka, Girard, Hutchin
son, Independence, Iola, Leavenworth, Kansas City, Marion,
Newton, Neodesha, Parsons, Pittsburg, Topeka, Wichita, and
Wellington.
Kentucky, Newport.
\
Louisiana, Shreveport.
Maryland, Cumberland.
Massachusetts, Gloucester, Haverhill, Lynn, and Taunton.
Michigan, Harbor Beach, Port Huron, Pontiac, and Wyandotte,
Mississippi, Clarksdale and Hattiesburg.
Minnesota, Faribault and Mankato.
New Mexico, Roswell.
North Carolina, Greensboro, High Point, and Wilmington.
North Dakota, Bismarck, Mandan, and Minot.
Oklahoma, Ardmore, Bartlesville, Duncan, El Reno, Enid,
Miami, McAlester. Muskogee, Purcell, Sapulpa, Tulsa, Wagoner,
Guthrie, and Oklahoma City.
Oregon, Baker City.
South Carolina, Columbia.
South Dakota, Dell Rapids, Huron, Tierre. Rapid City, Sioux
Falls, Vermilion, Yankton, Aberdeen, Canton, and Chamberlain.
Tennessee, Memphis.
Texas, Aransas Pass, Austin, Beaumont, Corpus Christi,
Port Arthur, Dallas, Denison, Fort Worth. Galveston, Green
ville, Houston, Kenedy, Marble Falls, Marshall, Palestine, Port
La vaca, and Sherman.
Utah, Salt Lake City.
Washington, Spokane and Tacoma.
West Virginia, Bluefield, Huntington, and Parkersburg.
Wisconsin, Eau Claire and Appleton.
In Texas, among the cities, I call attention to Dallas, the
largest city in the State; to Houston, Fort Worth, Galveston,
and a large number of others.
Mr. MARTINE of New Jersey. I will state in this con
nection that in New Jersey it has taken a strong hold of the
people there. The city of Trenton, the capital of our State,
has recently ratified it. It is now being agitated in the great
city of Jersey City, in New Brunswick, Plainfield, and a number
o f other cities. It is taking a strong hold upon the people of
New Jersey.
Mr. OWEN. I have thought it proper to submit this matter
to the Senate because I think it deserves to have the attention
of the country called to it as an agency for bringing about a
restoration of honest government in this country. Our munici
palities, and especially our great municipalities, have been most
2165— 10188
12
seriously afflicted by a partisan or bipartisan system of corrupt
politics, of which the examples are too numerous to mention
and some of them so egregious as to make it a serious humilia
tion to the American Republic. The condition which was
exposed by Francis J. Ileney and Rudolph Spreckels in San
Francisco is a painful exhibition of it. Ben Linsay’s disclosure
of the conditions in Denver was equally bad. The disclosures
of Joe Folk in St. Louis were just as striking and painful. In
Pittsburg, where 11G men, including a large part of the city
council, the legislative authority of that city, mercenaries who
were engaged in a wholesale conspiracy to rob that city and the
people o f the city under the party and ward service in the
governing business. The conditions in Harrisburg, Pa., the
conditions in Philadelphia, in New York, in Albany, and in
Boston furnish a like painful and sorrowful record.
I wish to say that this method o f governing municipalities
by the commission plan is not only adapted to villages and to
towns, but to great cities, cities as large as New York City
and Philadelphia, and the bigger the city* the more efficient and
valuable becomes the principle of governing the municipality
by the commission plan, which concentrates power and makes
those who exercise it responsible directly to the people under
the initiative, referendum, and recall.
It is sufficient to call the attention of the country to the ex
pediency of this method of administering the government of
municipalities and its wonderful success where it has been
tried, and I have done so for the purpose of promoting effi
ciency and honesty of government not only in cities, but in coun
ties, States, and Nation. For it must be always remembered
that a corrupt city boss uses his city machine to levy tribute
on the county-machine managers, on the State-machine man
agers, and on the national-machine managers to demand public
offices and legislative and administrative favor for himself and
his commercial and political allies.
Mr. President, the great problem of the present time is the .
restoration of equality of opportunity, so that every man, every
woman, and every child may receive and enjoy a fair return for
labor honorably and faithfully performed; so that every human
being can have an equal opportunity to enjoy the providences
of God and the inalienable lights of life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.
The only way that this equality of opportunity can be estab
lished is through genuine, real self-government of the people, by
the people, for the people. Under actual self-government when
the majority of the people are in power— the majority o f the
people will always refuse to grant special privileges to the few
at the expense of the many; refuse to grant to the few the
right to tax the many for the benefit of the few at the cost of
the many.
It will not do to say that the people have self-government
when in reality they are actually governed by machine politics;
when under the mechanism o f'p a rty management their gov
ernors, Congressmen, and Presidents are nominated by the dele
gated delegates in State conventions of delegated delegates in
county conventions sent by ward and precinct caucuses manip
ulated by local bosses and their henchmen; where the machine
under the mechanism o f party management can nominate all
21G5— 10188
13
public officials under a system which does not give to each
citizen an equal opportunity, through the mandatory direct
primary, safeguarded by law, to nominate public officers; where
there is no thoroughgoing corrupt practices act to prevent the
machine politicians from false registration, from stuffing the
baHot box or stealing the elections, through a variety o f fraud
ulent practices; where there is no system by which the peo
ple can recall crooked officials or veto laws which the people
do not want, or initiate laws which the people do want, it is
perfectly obvious to the most casual observer that the people
do not rule, but are ruled by the mechanism of machine politics
under the guidance of the so-called local, county, and State
boss, because the machine is in control in a majority of States.
Of course in nominating the President or in nominating any
other important officer, as a governor of a State, the machine
will not dare to nominate a man who is incapable o f standing
a campaign. But it must always be remembered that all men,
including public men, are influenced powerfully by their en
vironment and political associations and affiliations, and that
the great corporate monopolies of the country are fully aware
of those whose predilections will enable them to be subjected
to influences in the interest of big business.
It is not at all necessary to suggest that machine candidates
are of necessity dishonest or even insincere. It is sufficient
that they are subject to the domination or influence of special
interests. In this event, the people are not in reality exercis
ing the right to rule, but they are being ruled by nominees and
candidates chosen against the interests of the people, and who
would be greatly disliked by the people if the people really
understood what to expect from them.
Self-government is through two main systems; either it is
party government in combination with constitutional govern
ment or self-government solely through the constitutional form ;
that is, the direct rule of the people through constitutional
forms, without having party government.
The great political problem of the age is, How can real selfgovernment _be reestablished in national affairs, and be re
established in the States and in the towns and cities wherein
as yet the people are still out of power?
The line of least resistance in reestablishing the self-govern
ment of the people is through the initiative and referendum by
questioning candidates on this issue when the candidate is seek
ing votes. The ordinary candidate will not dare to refuse his
promise to support the initiative and referendum when he is
seeking to be nominated or elected, if vigorously questioned by
organized bodies of voters. To do so is to ask the voters to
support him as a lawmaker and at the same time to deny the
people whose votes he solicits their right to initiate any law
they do want or to veto any law they do not want. Few can
didates have the hardihood to do this. No candidate can suc
ceed in it where the people are in earnest in making the
demand.
With the initiative and referendum established, so that the
people can initiate any law they do want and veto any law they
do not want, the next steps are easy— to establish a thorough
going, mandatory, direct primary, safeguarded by law, and to
establish, also, a thoroughgoing corrupt-practices act that will
2 1 0 5 — 10188
secure an honest registration law, faithfully administered, and
will guarantee likewise elections free from bribery, coercion,
and corruption. In this way self-government can be secured
for the States as States.
For villages, towns, cities, and counties the answer is: Secure
from the legislature the right to establish a system o f govern
ment in which a small number o f representatives—town or
county commissioners—directly nominated, directly elected, and
subject to recall, shall be directly chosen by the people, respon
sible to the people, and who shall be both the legislators and
the executors of the public will. They will then conduct the
governing business for the people. The name of the system is
The Commission Form of Municipal Government. It may be
easily adapted to counties and to States.
It completely establishes the self-government of the people,
and will make it thoroughly efficient and honest.
COMMERCIALISM IN GOVERNMENT.
Commercialism has invaded the governing function. The
administrative branches of the Government, the legislative
branches o f the Government, and even the judicial departments
of Government are not free from its corrupting influence.
Commercialism has insinuated itself unfairly, unjustly, and
corruptly into the governing function in counties, in towns, in
cities, in States, and in the Nation.
Secret alliances have been entered into in innumerable coun
ties, cities, and States between various special interests and the
so-called partisan or bipartisan political machines.
These special interests have an infinite variety of forms. It
may be a gas company desiring to monopolize the gas at a
high rate in some city ; it may be a traction company; it may
be a water company; it may be a municipal-contract company
dealing with the paving, sewerage, municipal buildings; it may
be the Oil Trust, Tobacco Trust, or any of a thousand trusts
in commerce, transportation, or public utilities; it may be any
form of selfish interest or a combination of them.
It may be a combination of mere political mercenaries banded
together to put themselves in oflice, inspired not by patriotism,
not by desire to render public service, but banded together by
the “ cohesive power of public plunder.”
The main point is that these special interests use the political
machine as an agency through which they can promote their
selfish interests at the expense of the general welfare.
CORIiUFT MACHINE TOLITICS MUST BE TERMINATED.
It is for this reason that machine politics must be over
thrown and will be overthrown by the progressive movement,
which stands for an honest registration act, an honest election
law and secret ballot, a direct primary law, a thoroughgoing
corrupt-practices prevention act, the initiative and referendum
and recall, the commission form of government for cities, the
publicity pamphlet, a strict civil service, for direct nomination
of party delegates and of the presidential and vice presidential
candidates, and so forth. By these processes the power of the
political machine as an agency for corrupt government in the
service of the special interests against the general welfare can
be greatly abated and finally terminated.
2105— 101S8
It sometimes happens that even a political machine is
in the hands of ambitious but upright men, who do not lose
sight of honest government and may give the people a fairly
satisfactory government, but the opportunities for corruption
of government under this system is always open to the un
scrupulous when men inspired alone by the general welfare
grow weary, inattentive, and relax their vigilance. It is a bad
system, defective, and full of pitfalls.
THE POLITICAL MACHINE.
Mr. President, legitimate organization of patriotic men to
promote the policies of government in which they believe is
highly commendable and meets with my cordial and warm ap
proval. • I have always been active myself in promoting and
taking personal part in what I deemed legitimate political or
ganization for patriotic purposes; but when legitimate party
organization degenerates into a corrupt and corrupting political
machine, led by mercenaries with sinister purposes, who get
possession of the machinery o f political organization, under color
of intense devotion to the party service or of great zeal in
promoting party doctrines, and resort to corrupt practices, it
should be restrained and abated. When party knaves engage
in false registration o f voters, registering absentees, dead men,
fictitious persons, and ghosts, and thereafter have such falsely
registered electors impersonated at the polls and falsely vote
them; when they stuff the ballot box with fictitious ballots;
when their strikers mutilate the ballots of honest men to defeat
the public w ill; when they make a false count of the registered
votes; when they make false returns o f the registered votes;
when they steal the election by corrupt practices, coercing men
who are unfortunate, poor, or dependent; when they bribe
voters by the thousand, as they did in Adams and Scioto Coun
ties, Ohio; and put unworthy allies into office and public powers
when they enter into unholy alliance with sinister commercial
interests to defeat the public will, to buy municipal councils, as
they were exposed in doing in San Francisco, in Denver, in St.
Louis, in Chicago, in Pittsburg, and in innumerable cities; when
they and their office-holding allies enter into corrupt agreements
with municipal contractors to defraud the people of the city in the
building of streets, bridges, sewers, and waterworks; when they
give away or convey for a trifling consideration valuable fran
chises belonging to the people of the cities, or the people o f the
States, or the people of the United States, through corrupt com
binations o f this character; when they nominate public officials,
secretly pledged to serve special interests, by packing conven
tions in towns, cities, counties, and States; when these combina
tions nominate Members o f Congress and procure the election
of Senators by bribery and corrupt methods and practices as
the servants of special interests, the time has come when an
end shall be put to it by the people of the United States and
the integrity o f government be reestablished by the overthrow
o f such corrupt machines whether in city, State, or Nation.
The corrupt political machine is the chief agency through
which special interests operate in the United States. Those
desiring special privilege contribute large sums of money to
the organized machine— to the local, the city, the State, or
the national political “ boss.” They bring about the coercion
2 1 6 5 — 10188
of employees of corporations by tens of thousands for the sup
port of machine rule. They furnish the means for bribery and
corrupt practices and are paid back their investment by the
machine or the boss at public expense— by county contracts, by
municipal contracts, by laws they desire passed or laws they
desire defeated, by immunity from law, by the law's delay,
or by the appointment of various officials who administer the
law, prosecuting attorneys, and even o f judges on the bench
who will interpret the law favorably to them.
It is extremely difficult for the ordinary citizen to uncover,
expose, and punish these corrupt and corrupting processes.
Corrupting special interests will not hesitate to spend money
for the purchase of seats on the floor of the Senate an^ to use
other corrupt processes to unfairly influence legislators in the
choice o f Senators. When a Senator is to be elected every
available pull on the individual member of the legislature is
taken advantage of through the ambition, the interest, the self
ishness, the weakness, or the affections and obligations of the
individual member of the general assembly. Any member of
the general assembly whose house is mortgaged, who has serious
debts he can not meet, is thus capable o f being subjected to
such unfair pressure. It is for these reasons that the people of
the United States demand election o f Senators by direct vote
of the people. It is for these reasons that Oregon and other
States are adopting the people’s rule system and the presi
dential-preference voting system, so that the citizens may deal
directly with the nomination of a President. It is for these
reasons that the people of this country are demanding direct
primaries, so that they can select all candidates and party
delegates, and explains the demand for the initiative and
referendum, so that they can initiate the laws they do want
and veto the laws they do not want. By the initiative sys
tem alone can they force through thoroughgoing corrupt-prac
tices prevention acts in the several States over the heads of leg
islatures controlled by corrupt machines. It is for these reasons
that the short ballot has been so widely advocated and so largely
adopted in municipalities. It is for these reasons the people
demanded improved methods of administering the business of
the House of Representatives and relieving that body from
machine methods, and it is for these reasons that a commission
form of government for municipalities is so desired and so
necessary.
E X H IU IT D.
[Pages ICO to 181, inclusive, from “ The Dethronement of the City
B o s s ” (Funk & W agn alls), by John J. Hamilton.]
R e s u l t s o f t h e N e w S y s t e m i n F i v e T y p i c a l C i t i e s .1
1. IN GALVESTON, TEX.
A board of three eminent engineers was employed and paid to devise
plans for the reconstruction of the city after the flood.
The emergency following the great storm was dealt with efficiently
by the city acting independently and also jointly with the county and
State.
The grade o f the entire city was raised by the city with the assistance
of the S ta te ; a great sea wall was constructed by the cou n ty; these
improvements aggregating in cost $4,000,000.
*A majority of the cities operating under the new plan have adopted
it within the year 1900, and many of these have not yet held their first
elections under it.
2103— 10188
IT
Annual budgets exceeding the city’s revenue by an average of about
$ 100,000 gave way to budgets kept strictly within the municipal reve
nues.
A floating debt of $204,974.54 was paid off out o f current revenues;
bonds to the amount of $ 4 02,000. were retired; new bond issues were
restricted to permanent im provements; an agreement was reached with
holders of city bonds whereby the interest was reduced from 5 to 2%
per cent for a period of live years.
The city hall and the waterworks pumping station wrecked by the
flood were rebuilt.
The water system was extended and provision made for a duplicate
main across the bay.
Three engine houses were built and others damaged by the storm
were repaired.
The entire business section was repaved at a cost of $183,027.07.
Rock and shell roads, costing $ 1 8 1 ,004.04, were constructed.
The drainage system was extended at a cost of $245,004.47.
Old judgments to the amount of $18,02G.G5, inherited from former
administrations, were paid off.
City employees were paid in cash instead of in scrip subject to heavy
discounts.
City bonds quoted as low as 00 in the flood year were speedily
brought to a premium.
A modern system of bookkeeping was introduced.
Interest was collected on city balances in depositories.
A plan of preparing the annual budget and strictly adhering to it
was adopted.
The sanitation of the city was greatly improved.
The streets were kept cleaner and cleared of fruit stands and other
obstructions.
Police regulations were more strictly enforced.
Saloons were excluded from the residence districts.
The policy evil and public gambling were abolished.
The city hall was transformed from a resort for loafers into a busi
ness office.
Political influence was eliminated in selecting heads of departments
and employees: the merit system was established.
The city water service was metered.
Favoritism was done away with in all public services.
The services of men of the highest character and ability were secured
for the municipality.
Public confidence in the city government was fully restored.
The city was emancipated from the long reign of strife, dissension, and
jealousy ; harmony and general prosperity were reestablished.
Notwithstanding the enormous extension of municipal activities and
the increase of efficiency a tax rate of $ 1.00 for city purposes, the lowest
of any large city In Texas, was not Increased.
2.
IN HOUSTON, TKX.
City indebtedness to the amount of $400,000 was retired.
The practice of Issuing bonds to cover annual deficits was discon
tinued ; expenditures were kept rigidly within the city's income.
Current obligations were promptly m et; warrants, previously quoted
at 75 to 80, became worth par.
The city credit was completely restored, following a period when
bondholders had been threatening to sue on account of defaults.
Waterworks were purchased for $901,000 with popular approval,
showing confidence in the new government. The purchase was approved
In 1900 by a vote o f three to one, whereas it had been rejected in 1903.
The water service and fire protection were greatly improved.
The street railways were required to bear their share of public bur
dens and improve the service.
Three schoolhouses were built, at a cost of $100,000.
A 15-acre park was purchased for $55,000 cash.
Dangerous old bridges across the bayou, in the heart of the city,
which the old government had refused to replace, except by bond issues,
were replaced with new bridges, paid for out of current revenues.
Twelve other bridges were put in repair.
The city plumbing work and supplies were obtained at 15 to 25 per
cent less cost by the adoption of business methods.
Good vitrified brick paving was substituted for inferior work.
A shipload of brick was imported from New York, and the brick com
bination was broken.
The cost of electric lights was reduced from $S0 to $ ( 0 per arc per
year. •
2105— 10188-------2
The tax rate was reduced from $2 to $1.80.
Graft, sinecurism, favoritism, and incompetency, which permeated
every department of the old government, were done away with.
Police and sanitary regulations were strictly enforced; the fostering
of vice wras discontinued.
Quarreling and dissensions disappeared; harmony was restored both
in the city government and among citizens.
Business methods were adopted in all departments. Council sessions
became short, businesslike, and devoid of speech making.
The confidence of citizens in the integrity of the city government was
completely restored.
Growth and prosperity of the city were stimulated by improved civic
conditions.
These good results were obtained simply from change of the system,
members of the commission having been connected with the former
government.
3.
IN LEAVENWORTH, KANS.
Strict enforcement of law was substituted for the city's traditional
policy of defiance of State prohibitory laws.
Bankruptcy and financial helplessness were succeeded by a thoroughly
satisfactory condition of the city's finances.
Citizens of the highest standing were induced to accept office under
the new regime, the politicians being driven from power by large ma
jorities.
A period of decreasing population and stagnation in business and
building was followed by one of rapid growth in all of these respects.
In 25 years under the old form of government the city paved 12
miles of streets. In the first 21 months under the new system 5 i miles
were paved.
City bonds to the amount of $20,200 were paid off in two years.
The county indebtedness for which the city was responsible was paid
off by the latter to the net amount of $119,750 within two years.
Only $ 27,000 of the new bonds were issued against these reductions;
a net reduction of the bonded indebtedness of $112,950 took place, while
the new issues represented permanent improvements.
A new set of books was operated, and the city’s business handled
like that of “ an up-to-date mercantile establishment.”
A ll bills due from the city were paid before the 10th of each month.
Appointments were made on account of fitness, regardless of party
affiliations.
Property values largely increased, and the volume of real estate
transfers showed unprecedented growth of the city.
New factories were built, which give employment to 300 men.
All of these Improved conditions were brought about without In
creased taxation, despite a loss of $80,000 a year from illegal saloon
licenses.
4.
IN
DES M O IN E S , IO W A .
The city’s net loss in the last year of the old government was
$ 1 3 4 ,5 1 0 .6 2 ; the net gain in the first year under the new charter was
$48,439.10, a total relative saving of $182,949.65.
The tax levy for city purposes in the last year of the old charter was
38.7 mills (on the 25 per cent valuation established by law) ; the first
year under the new charter it was 36.4 mills.
Public improvements to the value of $357,755.50 were made during
the first year under the new system.
Contractors were held strictly to the specifications, and claims for
extras, which had grown into a erving abuse, were firmly rejected; the
quality of all public work visibly improved.
Several carloads of inferior creosote paving blocks were rejected.
A modern bookkeeping system was installed.
Municipal expenditures were held strictly within the city’s revenues,
ending the practice of piling up yearly deficits, to which almost the
entire city bonded debt was due.
Numerous leaks were stopped; all the licenses collected were turned
into the treasury.
Street lights, formerly costing $75 to $95, were reduced to a uniform
rate of $ 6 o per arc per year, and the moonlight schedule abolished, in
suring better service.
Incandescent lights were reduced from $24 to $17 in some cases
and the all-night schedule was substituted for a moonlight schedule in
others, at the same price, $17.
All public work was promptly d on e; complaints were given immediate
attention.
The streets were kept noticeably cleaner; the alleys In business sec
tions, never before cleaned at all, were now thoroughly cleaned.’
2 1 6 5 — 10188
19
Street signs were put up throughout the city, years of clamor for it
baving failed to induce the old government to make this improvement.
th e wages of men with teams were increased from $3.50 to $ 4 .5 0 :
those of day laborers from $2 to $ 2 .2 5 ; much better service was
required.
The quality of public service in all departments was noticeably
bettered.
J
The cost of cleaning catch basins was reduced from $1.40 to $1.12
Uniform cement walks were laid throughout the business section.
Bridge paving under the old system cost $4.74 per yard by con tract;
under the new system it was done by day labor for $4 09.
Culverts costing $17.61 per cubic‘ yard under the old plan were built
for $12.63 under the new.
Mowing in the parks was done at 75 per cent of the old cost,
work done by contract was let to the lowest bidders, without
manipulation.
The “ red-light ” district, operated under the corrupt and unlawful
monthly fining system, was entirely abolished.
Bond sharks, who owned the segregated “ red-light ” district and
oppressed the inmates of disorderly houses, were driven from business.
Public gambling houses, previously operated under police protection
were closed.
Petty gambling devices, such as slot machines, formerly protected
were effectually prohibited.
’
Ordinances regulating saloons were strictlv and uniformlv enforced
Friendly, but mutually self-respecting, relations between the city
government and public-service corporations were established
City politics were entirely divorced from State and national politics
„ PriI a4aa ^ erprise :an£ Public spirit were remarkably stimulated.'
Over $400,000 was raised for public purposes bv citizens in two vears
A great coliseum, new Y . M. C. A. and Y. W . C. A. buildings were
provided, etc.
The city, formerly notorious for “ divisive strife,” became notably
harmonious.
J
The confidence of citizens in the representative character of the citv
government was fully reestablished.
Following is a comparative statement of working funds in Des
Moines in 1907 and 1908 :
Cash on hand Apr. 1, 1907_____ $70, 396. 63
Claims outstanding______________
55, 085. 83
Excess cash over claims_______________ $15, 310. 80
Cash on hand Apr. 1, 1 9 0 8 _____ $72, 790. 11
Claims outstanding______________
191, 989. 93
Excess claims over cash_______________ 119, 1 9 9 . 82
Loss, 1907 (last year under old charter)_______________
Claims outstanding Apr. 1, 1908_ $181, 989. 93
Claims paid by bond issue_____
1 7 5 ,6 1 6 .0 7
Claims that were not paid by bond issue____
Cash on hand Apr. 1, 1 9 0 8____________________
16, 373. 86
72, 790. 11
Excess cash over claims that were
not paid by bond issue______________
Cash on hand Apr. 1, 1 9 0 9 _____$164, 352. 05
Claims outstanding_______________
5 9 , 496. 77
56, 416. 25
Excess cash over claims_______________
Gain, 1908
3 1 3 4 5 1 0 fio
104, 855. 28
(first year under new charter)_________________
4 8 ,4 3 9 .0 3
Gain, 1908 over 1 9 0 7 __________________________________
182, 9 4 9 . 65
5.
IN CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA.
,
re^ re(^ an(l interest paid thereon amounting to a total
of $61,980.
Extensive park improvements were made.
Additional park property was acquired.
A new fire station was erected. All city buildings were put in good
repair.
The island in Cedar River, formerly a dumping ground, was purcaased by the city and turned into a beautiful civic center.
1 lie services o f Charles Mulford Robinson, the civic improvement
expert, were secured, and, following his advice, streets were extended,
street signs were erected, waste paper receptacles provided, etc
2 1 6 5 — 10188
20
Fublic works of all kinds were done on a large scale, and well done.
The receipts from the police court increased from $75 to $700 per
month without an increase of arrests.
License taxes were impartially collected.
Milk and meat inspection laws were enforced.
Five patrolmen were added to the city police force.
Gamblers were driven from the city.
The social evil was segregated and put under severe restrictions.
Defective paving was rejected; contractors were held to the specifica
tions.
Cash discount was taken on all city bills.
Interest was collected on city balances in banks.
The city’s credit was established at the highest standard.
Business methods were introduced in all departments of the city
government.
Complaints from citizens were given immediate attention. Civic
pride was awakened.
The growth of the city was largely accelerated.
For t h e f o l l o w i n g e x h i b i t s s e e C o n g r e s s i o n a l R e c o r d o f July
13,1911:
Exhibit A.— Census Office report of city and county popula
tion ;
Exhibit B.— The Iowa la w ;
Exhibit C.— Ordinance under which the first administration of
Des Moines, Iowa, was organized;
Exhibit E.—List of cities having commission form of govern
ment in some fo rm ; and
Exhibit F.— “ Texas recall upheld by higher c o u r t;” “ Dallas
City Charter held to be valid.” Text of opinion.
* 2 165— 10188
o
S P E E C H
OP
I I ON.
R O B E R T L. O WE N .
The Senate, as in Committee of the W hole, having under consideration
the hill (H . R. 1438) to provide revenue, equalize duties, and encourage
the industries of the United States, and for other purposes—
Mr. OWEN said :
Mr. P r e s i d e n t : I have listened with interest to the Demo
cratic Senators from Louisiana urging a tariff rate on sugar
which will give “ protection ” to the sugar planters of Louisi
ana, Colorado, and other States, and the citations of the
junior Senator from Louisiana, quoting Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, Andrew Jackson, and various great Democrats down
to Samuel J. Tilden, showing that they approved— incidental—
protection under a revenue-producing tariff.
I have observed the vote of various Democratic Senators for
a revenue duty, with its incidental protection, on lumber, iron,
and so forth, and various Democratic speeches favoring a duty
on articles produced in their several States, with rates which
carried incidental protection to such industries.
It has been suggested in various ways that the action of
these Senators was not Democratic. Mr. President, I do not
agree with the suggestion that this is necessarily a just criti
cism of their action.
Mr. President, the first duty of a Democratic representative
is to represent the will of the people who have sent him. lie
has no right, in my opinion, to disregard the well-known wishes
of the great majority o f the people of his State, and should
resign if he can not represent them.
He has a right to believe, however, that when he is nominated
and elected by the Democrats of his State he is elected by those
who believe substantially in the teaching of Democracy. And
I respectfully submit that these Senators have not violated
the true canons of the Democracy when they vote for a tax on
lumber, or on lead and zinc, or hides, or on pineapples, when
they represent the wishes of the majority o f the people of their
States, provided always that the duty imposed is not pro
hibitive, does not prevent competition, and is laid at a point
not in excess of a maximum revenue-producing point.
Article I of section 8 of the Constitution lays down the
authority of Congress, which every Senator must construe on
2
'
86796— 8398
h o n o r to th e b e s t o f h is ju d g m e n t a n d a c c o r d in g to th e d ic t a t e s
o f h is c o n s c ie n c e —
That the Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes, duties,
imposts, and excises to pay the debts and to provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States.
W h e n , u n d e r th e c o lo r o f r a is in g th e r e v e n u e fo r th e c o m m o n
d e fe n s e
and
im p o s e d
gen eral
h a v in g
p reven t a
fo r
w e lfa r e
its
of
pu rpose
re v e n u e b e in g d e r iv e d
th e
U n it e d
to
p reven t
fr o m
S ta te s, a
d u ty
im p o r ta tio n s
is
and
su ch p reten d ed reven u e
la w , it is a tr a n s p a r e n t w r o n g , a v io la t io n o f th e s p ir it o f th e
C o n s titu tio n
its e lf, a n d
is n o t D e m o c r a t ic d o c t r in e .
T a x a tio n
c a n o n ly h a v e f o r its le g itim a te o b je c t th e r a is in g o f m o n e y f o r
p u b lic p u rp o s e s a n d th e p ro p e r n e e d s o f g o v e rn m e n t e c o n o m ic
a lly a d m in is t e r e d , a n d t h e e x a c t io n o f m o n e y s f r o m c it iz e n s f o r
o t h e r p u r p o s e s a n d to f a v o r p r iv a t e in t e r e s ts a t th e e x p e n s e o f
a ll t h e p e o p le is n o t a p r o p e r e x e r c i s e o f t h is p o w e r .
N o one
h a s m o r e s tr o n g ly e x p r e s s e d th a n C o o le y th e d is tin c tio n b e tw e e n
a d u t y im p o s e d f o r r e v e n u e u n d e r t h e c o n s t it u t io n a l a u t h o r it y
a n d a d u t y im p o s e d f o r th e p u r p o s e o f p r e v e n tin g im p o r ts , a n d
t h e r e b y p r o t e c t in g s o m e in d u s t r y fr o m c o m p e t it io n .
C o o le y s a y s :
It Is only essential that the legislature keep within its proper sphere,
and should not impose burdens under the name of taxation which are
not taxes in fa c t; and its decision as to what is proper, just, and politi
cal must then be final and conclusive. (Con. Lim., 7th ed., p. 678.)
John
M a r s h a ll
s a id ,
in
M c C u llo c h
v.
M a r y la n d
(4
W h e a t .,
31G ) :
The power of taxing the people and their property is essential to the
very existence of government, and may be legitimately exercised on the
objects to which it is applicable to the utmost extent to which the gov
ernment may choose to carry it. The only security against the abuse of
this power is found in the structure of the government itself. In im
posing a tax the legislature acts upon its constituents. This is, in gen
eral, a sufficient security against erroneous and oppressive taxation.
The people of a State, therefore, give to their government a right of
taxing themselves and their property; and as the exigencies of the gov
ernment can not be limited, they prescribe no limits to the exercise of
this right, resting confidently on the interest of the legislator and on
the influence of the constituents over their representative to guard them
against its abuse.
A n d in t h e c a s e o f P r o v i d e n c e v . B i l l i n g s ( 4 P e t ., 5 1 4 ) h e s a i d :
The power of legislation, and consequently of taxation, operates on all
persons and property belonging to the body politic. This is an original
principle, which has its foundation in society itself. It is granted by
all for the benefit of all. It resides in the government as part of itself,
and need not be reserved where property of any description, or the right
to use it in any manner, is granted to individuals or corporate bodies.
However absolute the right of an individual may be. it is still in the
nature of that right that it must bear a portion of the public burdens,
and that portion must be determined by the legislature.
This vital
power may he abu sed; but the interest, wisdom, and justice of the repre8 0 7 9 6 — 8398
4
sentative body and its relations with its constituents furnish the only
security where there is no express contract against unjust and excessive
taxation, as well as against unwise legislation generally.
W it h
R
ecord
th e
con sen t
of
an e x tr a c t fr o m
S u prem e C ou rt upon
th e
S e n a te ,
I
d e s ir e
C o o le y a n d fr o m
to
in s e rt
in
th e
th e d e c is io n s o f th e
th is p o in t
T H E P U RP O SES OP T A X A T IO N .
Constitutionally a tax can have no other basis than the raising of a
revenue for public purposes, and whatever governmental exaction has
not this basis is tyrannical and unlawful. A tax on imports, therefore,
the purpose of which is, not to raise a revenue, but to discourage and
indirectly prohibit some particular import for the benefit of some home
manufacture, m ay icell be questioned as being m erely colorable, and
therefore not warranted by constitutional principles. But if any in
come is derived from the levy, the fact that incidental protection is
given to home industry can be no objection to it, for all taxes must be
laid with some regard to their effect upon the prosperity of the people
and the welfare of the country, and their validity can not be deter
mined by the money returns. This rule has been applied when the levy
produced no returns w hatever; it being held not competent to assail
the motives of Congress by showing that the levy was made, not for the
purpose of revenue, but to annihilate the subject of the levy by Impos
ing a burden which it could not bear.
(Veazie Bank v. Fenno, 8 W all.,
5 3 3 .)
Practically, therefore, a law purporting to levy taxes, and not
being on its face subject to objection, is unassailable, whatever may
have been the real purpose. And perhaps even prohibitory duties may
be defended as a regulation of commercial intercourse.
L E V IE S FOB P R IV A T E P U RP O SES.
Where, however, a tax is avowedly laid for a private purpose, It is
illegal and void. The following are illustrations of taxes for private
purposes. A tax levied to aid private parties or corporations to estab
lish themselves in business as manufacturers (Loan Association v.
Topeka, 20 W all., 055, 6 G 3 ; Aliev v. Jay, 60 Me., 124) ; a tax, the pro
ceeds of which are to be loaned out to individuals who have suffered
from a great fire (Lowell v. Boston, 11 M ass., 454) ; a tax to supply
with provisions and seed such farmers as have lost their crops (State
v. Osawkee, 14 Kans., 4 1 8 ) ; a tax to build a dam, which, at discretion,
is to be devoted to private purposes (Attorney-General v. Eau Claire, 37
W is., 400) ; a tax to refund moneys to individuals, which they have
paid to relieve themselves from an impending military draft (Tyson v.
School Directors, 51 Penn., Sr., 9 ; Crowell v. Hopkinton, 45 N. H ., 9 ;
Usher v. Colchester, 83 Conn., 5 6 7 ; Freeland v. Hastings, 10 Allen
(M a ss.), 5 7 0 ; Miller v. Grandy, 13 Mich., 540) ; and so on. In any one
of these cases the public may be incidentally benefited, but the inci
dental benefit is only such as the public might receive from the industry
and enterprise of individuals in their own affairs, and will not support
exactions under the name of taxation.
But, primarily, the determination what Is a public purpose belongs
to the legislature, and Its action is subject to no review or restraint
so long as it is not manifestly colorable. A ll cases of doubt must be
solved in favor of the validity o f legislative action, for the obvious
reason that the question is legislative, and only becomes Judicial when
there is a plain excess o f legislative authority. A court can only arrest
the proceedings and declare a levy void when the absence of public
Interest In the purpose for which the funds are to be raised Is so clear
86796— 8398
5
and palpable as to be perceptible to any mind at first blush.
(Broadliead v. Milwaukee, 19 W is., 624, 6 5 2 ; Cheaney v. Hooser, 9 B. Monr.
(K y .), 330, 3 4 5 ; Booth v. Woodbury, 32 Conn., 118, 1 2 8 ; Hammett v.
Philadelphia, 65 Penn. St., ,1 4 6 ; Tide W ater Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J.
Eq„ 518.)
But sometimes the public purpose is clear, though the immediate
benefit is private and individual. For example, the Government prom
ises and pays bounties and pensions; but in every case the promise or
payment is made on a consideration of some advantage or service given
or rendered or to be given or rendered to the public, which is supposed
to be an equivalent; and the law for the payment has in view only the
public interest, and does not differ in principle or purpose from a law
for the payment of salaries to public officers. The same is true where
a State continues the payment of salaries to officers who have been
superannuated in its service. The question whether they shall be paid
Is purely political and resolves itself into t h i s : Whether the State will
thereby probably secure better and more valuable service, and whether,
therefore, it would be wise and politic for the State to give the seem
ing bounty.
Where a law for the levy of a tax shows on its face the purpose
to collect money from the people and appropriate it to some private
object, the execution of the law may be resisted by those of whom the
exaction Is made, and the courts, if appealed to, will enjoin collection
or give remedy in damages if property is seized. But if a tax law on
its face discloses no illegality, there can In general be no such remedy.
Such is the case with the taxes levied under authority of Congress;
they are levied without any specification of particular purposes to which
the collections shall be devoted, and the fact that an intent exists to
misapply some portion of the revenue produced can not be a ground of
illegality In the tax itself.
In cases arising In local government an
intended misappropriation may sometimes be enjoined; but this could
seldom or never happen in case of an Intended or suspected misap
propriation by a State or by the United States, neither of them being
subject to the process of injunction.
The remedies for such cases
are therefore political and can only be administered through the
elections.
(Cooley’s Principles of Constitutional Law, Chap. IV , p. 57,
The Powers of Congress.)
The bills of rights in the American constitutions forbid that parties
shall be deprived of property except by the law of the la n d ; but if
the prohibition had been omitted, a legislative enactment to pass one
man’s property over to another would, nevertheless, be void.
(Se»
Cooley’s Con. Limitations, p. 208.)
Nor, where fundamental rights are declared by the Constitution, is
it necessary at the same time to prohibit the legislature, in express
terms, from taking them away. The declaration is itself a prohibition,
and Is inserted in the Constitution for the express purpose of opera
ting as a restriction upon legislative power. (See Cooley’s Con. Lim ita
tions, p. 209.)
Cooley also states on page 587, in speaking of the power of taxation,
as fo llo w s: “ Taxes are defined to be burdens or charges imposed by the
legislative power upon persons or property, to raise money for public
purposes.”
Again, on page 598, he s a y s : “ Everything that may be done under
the name of taxation is not necessarily a t a x ; and it may happen that
an oppressive burden imposed by the Government, when it comes to b«
carefully scrutinized, will prove, instead of a tax. to be an unlawful
confiscation of property, unwarranted by any principle of constitutional
government. In the first place, taxation having for its only legitimate
8 6 7 9 0 — 8398
object the raising of money for public purposes and the proper needs of
government, the exaction of moneys from the citizens for other pur
poses, is not a proper exercise of this power, and must therefore be un
authorized.”
The Supreme Court of the United States, in the Topeka case, said :
“ To lay with one hand the power of the Government on the property
e f the citizen and with the other to bestow it upon favored individuals
to aid private enterprises and build up private fortunes is none the less
a robbery because it is done under the forms of law and is called
taxation. This is not legislation; it is a decree under legislative form s.”
(20 Wallace, 664, in Loan Asso. v. Topeka.)
M r. O W E N .
M r . C o o l e y , in C o n s t i t u t i o n a l L i m i t a t i o n s , p o i n t s
o u t w it h g r e a t f o r c e t h a t a le g is la t o r h a s n o c o n s t it u t io n a l r ig h t,
u n d e r t h e c o lo r o f im p o s in g a d u t y b y w h ic h to r a is e r e v e n u e s ,
to p a ss a
la w
p o rta tio n
and
w h i c h , in
th e
fa ct, h a s th e p u rp o s e to
r a is in g o f
reven u e by
su ch
p r e v e n t im
p reten d ed
d u ty,
to build up private for
b u t w h i c h in r e a l i t y h a s f o r i t s p u r p o s e
tunes by preventing competition.
T h e D e m o c r a c y h a s d e c l a r e d i n o n e o f i t s p l a n k s in t h e p l a t
fo r m
o f 1 8 9 2 in f a v o r o f a t a r i f f f o r
“ r e v e n u e o n ly ,”
w h i c h is
o n ly a n o t h e r w a y o f s a y in g t h a t d u t ie s s h a ll n o t b e im p o s e d f o r
purposes
an y oth er
t h a n r e v e n u e ; t h a t t h e y s h a ll n o t b e im p o s e d
f o r th e p u r p o s e o f e x c lu d in g im p o r t a t io n s a n d g iv in g m o n o p o ly
t o c o m b i n a t i o n s in t h i s c o u n t r y , a g a i n s t w h i c h t h e D e m o c r a c y
h a s c o n t in u a lly p r o t e s t e d s in c e 1 8 9 2 ; b u t t h is la n g u a g e c a n n o t
ju s t ly
be
con stru ed
p r o te c tio n .
D em ocra ts to
th u s
to
m ean
a
d e cla ra tio n
a g a in s t
in c id e n t a l
T h e f a c t t h a t i t w a s s o u n j u s t l y c o n s t r u e d le d t h e
d rop
a ffir m in g
th e
th e w o r d
d o ctr in e
“ o n ly ”
of
th e
in
th e p la tfo r m
D em ocracy
th a t
o f 1890.
in c id e n t a l
p r o t e c t i o n is e n t i r e l y j u s t w h e n e q u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t e d .
tariff for revenue
E very
an
u n a v o id a b le
c a lle d
and
“ p r o t e c t io n .”
for revenue only
T h is
c a r r i e s w it h it
u n a v o id a b le
p r o te c tio n
is
“ i n c i d e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n ” — t h a t is , a p r o t e c t i o n i n c i d e n t a l
to th e r a is in g o f r e v e n u e s u n d e r a c o n s t it u t io n a l ta r iff.
T o s a y , t h e r e fo r e , t h a t it is u n d e m o c r a t ic t o d e m a n d t h e in c i
d e n t a l b e n e fit s o r in c id e n t a l p r o t e c t io n
be
absu rd .
T h e v e r y e s s e n c e o f D e m o c r a c y is
law
and
c a r r ie s
fe c tly
e q u ita b ly
under
an
r ig h t
th e
la w ,
in c id e n ta l
to
ask
d is tr ib u te d
and
its
u tte r ly
s in c e
p ro te c tio n ,
th a t
is
o f a r e v e n u e -p r o d u c in g
ta r iff to
it
every
is
b e u e fits
u n r e a s o n a b le
ta r iff
p e r fe c tly
be
and
equality before the
fo r
ju s t
e q u ita b ly
reven u e
and
per
d is tr ib u te d .
I t h e r e f o r e h a v e n o f a u l t t o f in d w i t h D e m o c r a t s w h o , r e p r e s e n t
in g t h e ir o w n
S ta te s , d e m a n d a t a r iff f o r r e v e n u e w h ic h
g iv e in c id e n t a l p r o t e c t io n
to th e ir o w n
s h a ll
sta tes.
I v e n tu r e to s a y th a t th e D e m o c r a t ic S e n a to r s fr o m L o u is ia n a
w o u ld p r o b a b ly c e a s e t o r e p r e s e n t t h a t S t a t e i f t h e y ig n o r e d th e
w i s h e s o f t h e p e o p l e o f t h a t S t a t e in l a y i n g a r e v e n u e - p r o d u c i n g
d u t y c a r r y in g in c id e n t a l p r o t e c t io n t o th e s u g a r p la n te r .
8 6 7 9 6 — 8398
z
I s h o u ld m y s e lf v o t e f o r a lo w e r d u t y o n s u g a r a n d in c r e a s e
th e
c o m p e t it io n
w ith
th e A m e r ic a n
Sugar
w h o s e e x a c t io n s , I th in k , to o g r e a t
R e fin in g
C om pany,
I n d e e d , I f a v o r fr e e lu m
b e r , p a p e r a n d w o o d p u lp , f r e e ir o n , f r e e c o a l, f r e e w o o l, a n d f r e e
h id e s , a n d f r e e r a w m a t e r ia ls a s a g e n e r a l ru le .
B u t I s h a ll n o t
t a k e is s u e w it h th e D e m o c r a t ic S e n a to r s o f L o u is ia n a b e c a u s e
nor
th e y r e p r e s e n t th e w ill o f th e c o n s titu e n c y w h ic h s e n t th e m
read them out of the party.
I f th e
S e n a to rs fr o m
L o u is ia n a
a d v o c a t e d a d u t y s o h ig h a s t o e x c lu d e fo r e ig n s u g a r fr o m
cou n try ,
c u ttin g
o ff
p o te n tia l
fo r e ig n
c o m p e t it io n
and
our
esta b
lis h in g a c o m p le te m o n o p o ly b e h in d a t a r iff w a ll f o r th e s u g a r
p la n t e r , I
s h o u ld
th en
s a y , t h a t a lth o u g h
th ey
c la im e d
D e m o c r a ts a n d c la im e d t o r e p r e s e n t a D e m o c r a t ic
to b e
S ta te , th e y
w e r e n o t D e m o c r a t s o n th is s u g a r s c h e d u le a n d th a t th e ir S ta te
w a s n o t D e m o c r a tic
in
regard
to
th is
s c h e d u le , b u t, n o t w it h
still he
glad to see their cooperation in every other respect with the
organized Democracy.
s ta n d in g t h a t fa c t ,
I
s h o u ld
even
in t h a t c o n t i n g e n c y
M r. P re s id e n t, I c a n n o t a p p r o v e th e v ie w o f th o s e sta te sm e n
who
la y
dow n
too
h a rd
and
fa s t o r
d o g m a tic
r u le
by
w h ic h
th e y a p p r o v e o r co n d e m n a m a n w h o c la im s to b e a D e m o c r a t,
and
w o u ld
w ith
r e fu s e p o litic a l a s s o c ia tio n
th e D e m o cra cy
in
th e
body
of
to
a
m an
who
b e lie v e s
th e D e m o c r a t ic d o c tr in e ,
b u t r e p r e s e n ts o c c a s io n a lly a lo c a l in te r e s t a t v a r ia n c e w ith a
n a tio n a l
agrees
p la tfo rm .
in
p a rty .
every
No
m em ber
p a r tic u la r
w ith
of
any
every
great
oth er
p o litic a l
m em ber
p a rty
of
th a t
T h e r e m u s t b e g r e a t e r o r le s s d iffe r e n c e s a m o n g s i x o r
e ig h t m illio n s o f p e o p le a s t o w h a t c o n s t itu te s D e m o c r a c y , a n d
as
to
w hat
c o n s titu te s
R e p u b lic a n is m .
As
I
u n d ersta n d
th e
d iffe r e n c e s th e D e m o c r a t ic d o c t r in e in s is ts o n fr e e d o m o f sp e e ch ,
fr e e d o m
o f th e p ress, fre e d o m
o f c o n s c ie n c e , t h e e q u a lity o f a ll
c itiz e n s b e fo r e th e la w , th e g r e a te s t g o o d to th e g r e a te s t n u m
b er, th e fa ith fu l
b e lie v e s
in
observan ce
as great a
o f c o n s t it u t io n a l lim it a t io n s ,
m e a s u re o f d e ce n tr a liz a tio n
as
is
and
con
s is t e n t w it h t h e s t r ic t e x e r c is e o f t h e n a t io n a l fu n c t io n , w h ile
t h e R e p u b l i c a n p a r t y g e n e r a l l y b e l i e v e s in t h e g r e a t e s t e x e r c i s e
o f th e n a tio n a l fu n c tio n , u n m in d fu l o r
th e reserv ed
c e n tly
in w i l l f u l d i s r e g a r d
r ig h t s o f th e S ta te s , a lt h o u g h a g a in s t t h is is
a p p e a r in g
som e
r e s p e c ta b le
R e p u b lic a n
r e a c tio n ,
of
re
and
t h e r e fo r e th e t e n d e n c y o f t h e R e p u b lic a n p a r t y is t o g iv e c o n
s t a n t ly in c r e a s in g p o w e r s t o t h e c e n t r a liz e d g o v e r n m e n t, w h ile
th e
D e m o c r a tic
s h o u ld
be
p a rty
r e ta in e d
as
in s is ts
near
th a t th e
to
th e
p ow ers
p e o p le
as
of
g ov ern m en t
p o s s ib le .
The
D e m o c r a t ic p a r t y w o u ld t r u s t th e p e o p le m o r e ; th e R e p u b lic a n
p a r ty w o u ld
tr u s t th e c o n v e n tio n
86790— 8398
I
le a d e r s o f th e p e o p le m o r e ;
t h e R e p u b lic a n p a r t y w o u ld e x c lu d e fo r e ig n c o m p e t it io n , a c t u a l
o r p o te n tia l, f o r th e b e n e fit o f c e r t a in fa v o r e d in d iv id u a ls a n d
th e e n r ic h m e n t o f p r iv a t e p e r s o n s a n d c o r p o r a t io n s , w h ile
th e
D e m o c r a t ic p a r t y w o u ld f a v o r a t a r iff f o r r e v e n u e c a r r y in g in
c id e n ta l p ro te c tio n , b u t n o t to th e e x te n t o f c u t tin g d o w n th e
r e v e n u e b y b e in g a b o v e th e m a x im u m
r e v e n u e -p r o d u c in g p o in t
o r c u t t in g o ff fo r e ig n c o m p e t it io n a n d so e s t a b lis h in g m o n o p o ly .
B o t h p a r t ie s d e c la r e t h e m s e lv e s a t ta c h e d t o p u r it y o f g o v e r n
m e n t , a n d b o t h p a r t i e s p r a c t i c e i t j u s t in d e g r e e a s t h e j u d g m e n t
a n d th e c o n s c ie n c e s o f t h e lo c a l c o n s t it u e n c ie s r e q u ir e .
T h e D e m o c r a t s in 1 S 9 2 d e n o u n c e d R e p u b l i c a n p r o t e c t i o n a s a
fr a u d , a r o b b e r y o f th e g r e a t m a jo r it y o f t h e A m e r ic a n p e o p le
f o r t h e b e n e fit o f t h e fe w .
I t s h o u ld b e o b s e r v e d th a t it w a s
n o t p r o t e c t io n o r in c id e n t a l p r o t e c t io n w h ic h w a s d e n o u n c e d a s
a f r a u d ; it w a s “ R e p u b lic a n p r o t e c t io n ” w h ic h w a s d e n o u n c e d
a s a fr a u d , a s a r o b b e r y o f th e g r e a t m a jo r it y o f th e A m e r ic a n
p e o p le
fo r
t h e b e n e fit o f t h e f e w .
It w as
s a m e tim e b y t h is D e m o c r a t ic p la t fo r m
p o in t e d
o u t a t th e
t h a t t h is r o b b e r y o f th e
g r e a t m a jo r it y w a s d u e to m o n o p o lie s b u ilt u p a s a n a tu r a l c o n
s e q u e n c e o f th e p r o h ib it iv e t a x e s , w h ic h p r e v e n te d fr e e c o m p e t iiio n .
**
T h e r e i s a n e l e m e n t o f j u s t i c e a n d w i s d o m in s o d r a f t i n g
o u r r e v e n u e t a r iff a s to a ffo r d in c id e n ta l p r o te c tio n to A m e r ic a n
in d u s tr ie s .
A n d a t a r iff f o r r e v e n u e w h ic h im p o s e s a d u t y u p o n
a r t ic le s o f in te r n a tio n a l tr a d e h ig h e n o u g h to p r o d u c e a p r o p e r
r e v e n u e w ill a lw a y s b e fo u n d h ig h e n o u g h t o p r o t e c t A m e r ic a n
l a b o r a .i d t h e A m e r i c a n m a n u f a c t u r e r w h o d e s i r e s o f h i s f e l l o w c itiz e n s n o th in g m o r e th a n a t a r iff r a te w h ic h s h a ll e q u a l “ th e
d i f f e r e n c e in t h e c o s t o f p r o d u c t i o n a t h o m e a n d a b r o a d . ”
T h e R e p u b lic a n p a r t y
p r e t e n d s t o s t a n d f o r t h i s , b u t in t h e
S e n a te a n d H o u s e h a v e u tte r ly d is r e g a r d e d th is r a tio n a l s ta n d
ard, h a ve
ig n o r e d
“ th e d iffe r e n c e
in
th e
cost o f
p r o d u c t io n ,”
w h ic h w ill n o t e q u a l 20 p e r c e n t, a n d w r itte n a t a r iff a v e r a g
in g m o r e t h a n 1 0 0 p e r c e n t h ig h e r th a n
equal
“ th e
a b r o a d .”
d iffe r e n c e
in
th e
cost
of
w o u ld
p r o d u c tio n
b e r e q u ir e d to
at
hom e
and
T h e y h a v e w r it t e n a t a r iff t o p r e v e n t le g it im a t e c o m
p e t i t i o n , a n d in t h i s m a n n e r p r o m o t e m o n o p o l y a n d f a v o r s o c i a l
p e r s o n s a n d c o r p o r a t io n s a t th e e x p e n s e o f a ll t h e p e o p le .
I t seems to me th a t the D em ocratic p a rty con tain s w ith in
itse lf and should w elcom e and em brace a ll o f those w hose sym
pathies are, in the m ain, w ith the D em ocracy, and not impose
too n arrow or too dog m a tic standards o f D em ocracy, w h ich w ill
tend to d isin teg ra te th a t grea t pa rty o f the people and make its
fu tu re success im possible.
The first du ty o f a p a trio tic m in ority is to becom e a m a jority
and w rite its p rin cip les in to the laws.
t
8 6 7 9 6 — 8398
'
o
t
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STA TE S
A P R IL
8, 1912
W A SH IN G T O N
R E M A R K S
OP
HON.
ROBERT
L. O W E N .
The Senate having under consideration the bill (S. 29351 to provide
for the construction, maintenance, and improvement of post roads and
rural-delivery routes through the cooperation and joint action of the
National Government and the several States in which such post roads
or rural-delivery routes may be established—
M r. O W E N s a i d :
M r . P r esid ent : S e n a t e b i l l 2 9 3 5 , p r e p a r e d b y t h e S e n a t o r
f r o m V i r g i n i a [ M r . S w a n s o n ] , i s d r a w n in t h e l i g h t o f b i s e x
p e r i e n c e a s t l ie c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f m y o l d h o m e C o m m o n w e a l t h
o f V ir g in ia .
T h i s b i l l p r o v i d e s f o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n o f $ 2 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a n n u
a lly f o r th e c o n s t r u c t io n , m a in te n a n c e , a n d im p r o v e m e n t o f
p o s t r o a d s a n d r u r a l d e liv e r y r o u te s th r o u g h th e c o o p e r a tio n
a n d jo in t a c t io n o f th e N a tio n a l G o v e r n m e n t a n d th e s e v e r a l
S ta te s in w h ic h s u ch r o a d s m a y b e e s t a b lis h e d , th e N a t io n a n d
S ta te c o n t r ib u t in g e q u a lly to th e c o s t.
T h e v a lu e o f t h is p r o
p o s a l is t h a t th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t w o u ld a t o n c e ta k e t h e
i n i t i a t i v e a n d m a k e a v a i l a b l e t o e v e r y S t a t e t l ie e x p e r t k n o w l
ed g e g a th e re d to g e th e r b y th e F e d e ra l G ov ern m en t on th e c o n
s tr u c tio n a n d m a in te n a n c e o f g o o d r o a d s .
T h is in i t i a t i v e is o f s u p r e m e im p o r t a n c e .
N o g r e a t p u b lic
e n t e r p r is e w ill r e c e iv e p r o p e r a t t e n t io n u n le s s s o m e o n e is
c h a r g e d w it h t h e d ir e c t d u t y o f a t t e n d in g t o t h a t b u s in e s s .
E x p e r ie n c e h a s s h o w n t h a t th e p r iv a t e in d iv id u a l w ill n o t
t a k e t h e i n i t i a t i v e in b u i l d i n g g o o d r o a d s , b e c a u s e t h e t a s k i s
t o o g r e a t f o r h im , a n d in lik e m a n n e r t h e c o u n t y , e x c e p t f o r
th e la w s p a s s e d b y th e S ta te , w o u ld n o t in itia te g o o d r o a d s e x
c e p t in s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e s .
B u t w ith th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t
ta k in g th e in itia tiv e , in v itin g th e S ta te c o o p e r a tio n , e v e r y S ta te
w o u ld b e s t r o n g ly s t im u la t e d to im p r o v e th e r o a d s .
T h is fe a
t u r e o f t h is b ill is o f g r e a t v a lu e .
T h e g o o d - r o a d s d e p a r t m e n t u n d e r t h is b ill w o u ld s p e e d ily
fo r m u la t e a n d s u b m it to th e v a r io u s S ta te s a m e th o d o f c o
o p e r a t i o n w h i c h w o u l d r e s u l t in c o o r d i n a t i n g t h e S t a t e a n d
F e d e r a l a c t i v i t i e s in r o a d b u i l d i n g u p o n a u n i f o r m a n d j u d i c i o u s
b a s is . I a m s u r e t h a t t h e p e o p le o f m y o w n S t a t e o f O k la h o m a
w o u l d b e g l a d t o c o o p e r a t e w i t h t lie F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t in
im p r o v in g th e h ig h w a y s a n d r u r a l r o u te s .
In th e c o n s titu tio n
o f O k la h o m a w e e s t a b lis h e d a d e p a r t m e n t o f h ig h w a y s , a n d
H o n . S id n e y S u g g s, o f A r d m o r e , th e s ir e n u o u s a n d a b le h e a d
o f t h i s d e p a r t m e n t , i s a c t i v e l y o r g a n i z i n g p u b l i c o p i n i o n in s u p
p o r t o f t h i s t h e n e x t g r e a t s t e p in t h e n a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f
th e R e p u b lic .
M r. P r e s id e n t, n o t h in g th a t I s h a ll s a y w ill b e e it h e r o r ig in a l
o r n o v e l , b u t t l ie f a c t s a n d t h e r e a s o n s s h o u l d b e e m p h a s i z e d
o n t lie a t t e n t i o n o f t h e c o u n t r y . T h e i m p r o v e m e n t o f t h e p u b l i c
o
383 60 — 10851
3
r o a d s o f t l ie U n i t e d S t a t e s i s u r g e n t l y n e c e s s a r y f o r a v a r i e t y
o f reason s.
T h e n a tio n a l g r o w th a n d p r o s p e r ity m u s t d e p e n d on g o o d
road s.
T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f t h e s u b u r b a n s c h o o ls , c h u r c h e s , m a il d e
liv e r y , th e in te llig e n c e a n d s o c ia l in te r c o u r s e o f th e c o u n tr y
p e o p le , t h e a t t r a c t iv e n e s s , t h e v a lu e , th e fin a n c ia l r e tu r n s , a n d
th e p h y s ic a l p r o d u c tiv e n e s s o f th e fa r m d e p e n d u p o n g o o d ro a d s .
C h e a p e r fo o d p r o d u c ts an d c h e a p e r m a n u fa c tu r e d p r o d u c ts b oth
d epen d upon g ood road s.
I n a c c e s s ib le a n d m u d d y r o a d s c o s t th e N a tio n a th o u s a n d
m illio n s a n n u a lly .
J u s t i c e t o t h e f a r m e r , w h o p a y s GO p e r c e n t o f t h e t a x e s a n d
g e t s b u t l i t t l e i n r e t u r n , d e m a n d s it .
T h e v a lu e o f t h e p u b lic
s c h o o l, th e p re s s , t h e p u lp it, t h e p la t fo r m , a n d a ll th e a d v a n
ta g e s o f c iv iliz e d life d e p e n d u p o n a cce ss, a n d a cce ss u p on g o o d
roads.
T h e e x te n s io n o f tr a d e , t h e im p r o v e m e n t o f th e o p p o r
t u n it ie s t o t h e c itiz e n , t h e r e l i e f o f t h e c o n g e s t io n o f p o p u la t io n
in t h e c i t i e s d e p e n d u p o n g o o d r o a d s .
G o o d r o a d s a r e a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y in p e a c e a n d in w a r .
T h e y a r e t h e c h ie f a g e n c y o f a g r e a t in d u s tr ia l p e o p le f o r th e
fr e e in te r c h a n g e o f th e p r o d u c ts o f la b o r.
T H E C O N S T IT U T IO N A L IT Y OF FEDKUAL AID TO GOOD HOADS.
I t h a s b e e n s a id th a t t h e U n ite d S ta te s h a s n o c o n s t it u t io n a l
r ig h t to c o n t r ib u t e to th e b u ild in g o f g o o d ro a d s .
1 e m p h a t i
c a l l y d e n y it .
U n d e r s e c t i o n 8 , A r t i c l e I . o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n , C o n g r e s s is
e x p r e s s l y a u t h o r i z e d to e s t a b l i s h p o s t r o a d s , a n d i s g i v e n p o w e r
“ t o c o lle c t t a x e s ,” “ to p r o v id e f o r th e c o m m o n d e fe n s e a n d g e n
era l w e l f a r e o f th e U n ite d S ta te s ."
T h e p e r fe c tio n o f th e p o s ta l h ig h w a y s a n d o f th e R u r a l F r e e
D e liv e r y S e r v ic e w ill e x te n d p o st r o a d s o v e r e v e ry Im p o rta n t
r o a d in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s u p o n w h i c h a n y n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n
n e e d b e g iv e n , a n d t h e l i g h t o f th e U n ite d S ta te s to p r o v id e f o r
t h e c o m m o n d e fe n s e c a r r i e s w it h it t h e r ig h t io e s t a b lis h n a
t io n a l h ig h w a y s , a s R o m e d id , f o r th e m o v e m e n t o f o u r n a tio n a l
t r o o p s in t i m e o f w a r a n d f o r t h e ‘ g e n e r a l w e l f a r e ” a n d t h e
m o v e m e n t o f i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e a n d t r a n s p o r t ;! t i o n in t i m e
o f peace.
T h e r ig h t t o p r o v id e f o r th e g e n e r a l w e lfa r e o f th e U n ite d
S t a t e s s u f f i c i e n t l y c o v e r s n a t i o n a l a i d in e s t a b l i s h i n g h i g h w a y s
o f s to n e a s w e ll a s o f ste e l r a ils t h r o u g h o u t th e U n ite d S ta te s .
W h y , M r. P r e s id e n t, C o n g r e s s a u th o r iz e d th e C u m b e r la n d
R o a d a t t h e h e a d w a t e r s o f t h e P o t o m a c in 1^ 11 a t a c o s t o f
$ 7 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 , a n d in 1 1 y e a r s a b o u t t h i s p e r i o d 14 g r e a t h i g h w a y s
w e r e a u th o riz e d to b e b u ilt b y C o n g re ss.
I t w a s th e g e n e r a lly a c k n o w le d g e d d o c t r in e o f o u r fo r e fa t h e r s
t h a t t h e G o v e r n m e n t h a d t h is r ig h t, a n d fr o m 1 8 5 0 th e G o v e r n
m e n t g r a n t e d a id to h ig h w a y s w it h s te e l r a ils fr o m th e M is s is
s ip p i t o t h e P a c ific c o a s t a n d s u b s id iz e d th e U n io n P a c ific , t h e
C e n t r a l P a c ific , th e N o r th e r n P a c ific , th e S o u t h e r n P a c ific , a n d
g a v e a w a y 2 0 0 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 a c r e s o f t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n in s u p p o r t o f
n a t io n a l h ig h w a y s .
T h e s e c o n t r ib u t io n s w o u ld
be
w o rth
a p p r o x im a t e ly
$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 .0 0 0 , w h i c h w e n t t o p r i v a t e p e r s o n s a n d p r i v a t e c o r p o r a
t io n s f o r t h e b u ild in g o f n a tio n a l h ig h w a y s .
383 0 0 — 10851
T h e r e i s n o m e r i t in t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e N a t i o n a l G o v e r n
m e n t m a y n o t c o n t r ib u t e t o th e s u p p o r t o f p o s t r o a d s w it h in
th e S ta te s .
D o w n t o t h e m o s t r e c e n t d a y s , s in c e t h e W a r w it h S p a in ,
th e re h a s b e e n e x p e n d e d fr o m o u r N a tio n a l T r e a s u r y f o r r o a d
b u ild in g in —
AlnqkP
_________________________________________ $ 1 ,9 2 5 ,0 0 0
porto u ic o ::::::::::_________________________
The Philippines-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The Canal Zone----------------------------------------------------------------------------T o t a l_________________________________________ --------------------
2,000,000
WO, 000
1,
8, 38-1, 073
T H E URGENT N E C E S S IT Y FOR N A TIO N A L AID.
M r . P r e s i d e n t , w e h a v e t h e b i g g e s t c o u n t r y , t h e fin e s t l a n d ,
th e r ic h e s t p e o p le — a n d th e p o o r e s t r o a d s o n e a rth .
T h e r e is a
r e a s o n f o r th is , a n d t h e r e a s o n is t h a t o u r r o a d -b u ild in g s y s t e m
i s b a s e d o n t h e o l d l o c a l i z e d E n g l i s h s y s t e m in t h e d a y s o f t h e
A m e r ic a n C o lo n ie s , a n d h a s n e v e r b e e n a d e q u a t e ly im p r o v e d
to m e e t th e a d v a n c in g k n o w le d g e o f c iv iliz a tio n .
In m a n y o f o u r S ta te s w e s till k e e p u p th e d e s tr u c tiv e a n d
w a s t e fu l s y s te m o f fin a n c in g r o a d b u ild in g b y t a x in g a d jo in in g
p r o p e r t y a n d a d m in is t e r in g th e c o n s t r u c t io n a n d m a in t e n a n c e
b y u t t e r l y u n s k i l l e d , i n t e n s e l y l o c a l i z e d m a n a g e m e n t , w h i c h is
v e r y o ft e n to o in c o m p e t e n t t o m e r it c o n s id e r a t io n o r d e fe n s e .
It
is g r o s s ly u n ju s t t o t a x t h e f a r m e r t o b u i l d a n d s u s ta in t h e ,r o a d
w h i c h p a s s e s t h r o u g h h i s f a r m , w h e n t h a t r o a d , in f a c t , i s a
h ig h w a y u s e d b y te n s o f th o u s a n d s w h o o u g h t to c o n tr ib u te
t h e ir p r o p o r t io n a t e p a r t to th e c o n s t r u c t io n o f th e h ig h w a y .
T h e N a t io n a l G o v e r n m e n t , w h ic h r a is e s r e v e n u e b y t a x in g
e v e r y m a n , a n d th e S ta te g o v e r n m e n t, w h ic h r a is e s it s r e v e n u e s
b y t a x in g a ll t h e p e o p le , s h o u ld c o o p e r a t e w it h t h e s e t a x e s
le v ie d o n a ll th e p e o p le t o c o n s t r u c t t h e s e h ig h w a y s w h ic h a r e
u s e d b y a l l t h e p e o p l e j u s t in p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e u s e o f t h e r o a d s .
T o c o m p e l t h e c o n s t r u c t io n a n d m a in t e n a n c e o f t h e m a in h ig h
w a y s b y th e lo c a l c it iz e n w h o h a s h a d n o o p p o r t u n it y o f b e in g
i n s t r u c t e d in t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r m a i n t e n a n c e o f r o a d s i s n e c e s
s a r i l y t o p l a c e t h e h i g h w a y s u n d e r a n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n .n o t
e q u ip p e d t o d o t h is w o r k u n d e r t h e s a fe g u a r d o f t h o r o u g h ly
s c ie n t ific k n o w le d g e , w h ic h is e s s e n t ia l t o p r o p e r r e s u lt s .
M il
lio n s h a v e b e e n s q u a n d e r e d b y th is o b s o le t e m e th o d , a n d th e
r o a d s r e m a in t o -d a y a s a n o v e r w h e lm in g w it n e s s o f th e in c o m
p e te n ce o f p a st m a n a gem en t.
F o r e x a m p le , u n d e r th e p res en t
l a w s o f T e x a s , in a S t a t e w h i c h s p e n d s m o r e t h a n $ 8 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
a n n u a l l y o n r o a d i m p r o v e m e n t , t h e c o u n t y j u d g e is t h e o n e
a b s o lu te a u th o r it y on r o a d m a tte r s .
S u c h a th in g a s a c o u n ty
e n g in e e r , e x c e p t b y s p e c ia l a c t o f th e le g is la t u r e , s e e m s to b e
u n th o u g h t o f.
I n F r a n c e , w h e r e t h e y h a v e t h e b e s t r o a d s in t h e w o r l d , a t
t h e h e a d o f th e r o a d s y s te m t h e r e is a m a g n ific e n t te c h n ic a l
s c h o o l o f r o a d s a n d b r i d g e s , m a i n t a i n e d a t t h e e x [t e n s e o f t h e
N a t io n a l G o v e r n m e n t , fr o m w h ic h g r a d u a t e s a r e c h o s e n a s h ig h
w a y e n g in e e r s to b u ild a n d m a in t a in th e r o a d s o f F ra n c e .
T h e r e is a n im m e d ia t e c o o p e r a t io n b e t w e e n t h e R e p u b lic , t h e
d e p a rtm e n ts , a n d th e c o m m u n e s a s c o m p le te ly a s a n o r g a n iz e d
a r m y , d ir e c t e d b y th e m o s t in t e llig e n t h e a d p o s s ib le t o o b ta in .
A t t h e h e a d o f t h e a d m in is t r a t iv e o r g a n iz a t io n is a d ir e c t o r
g e n e r a l o f b r id g e s a n d h ig h w a y s , u n d e r w h o m a r e t h e c h i e f e n g i
n e e r s , o r d in a r y e n g in e e r s , a n d s u b o r d in a t e e n g in e e rs , th e la t te r
38360— 10851
b e i n g e q u i v a l e n t i n r a n k t o n o n c o m m i s s i o n e d o f f i c e r s in t h e
arm y.
T h e s u b d iv is io n s a r e u n d e r th e d ir e c t io n o f p r in c ip a l
c o n d u c to r s a n d o r d in a r y co n d u cto rs.
N e x t in l i n e c o m e t h e
fo r e m e n o f c o n s t r u c t io n g a n g s , th e c le r k s e m p lo y e d a t h e a d
q u a r te r s , a n d , fin a lly , t h e p a t r o lm e n , e a c h h a v in g fr o m 4 t o 7
k ilo m e t e r s o f h ig h w a y u n d e r h is im m e d ia t e s u p e r v is io n . The great administrative machine working in complete harmony, with
definite lines of responsibility clearly established, accomplishes results
with military precision and regularity. In this great army of workers
not the least important unit is the patrolman, who lias, charge of a single
section of the road. He keeps the ditches open, carefully fills holes and
ruts with broken stone, removes dust and deposits of sand and earth
after heavy rains, removes the trees, shrubs, and bushes, and when
ordinary work is impossible breaks stone and transports it to the point
where it is likely to be needed. lie brings all matters requiring atten
tion to the notice of his chief.
E v e r y d e t a il r e q u ir in g a t te n tio n is c a r e fu lly n o t e d a n d r e
p o r te d to th e c e n tr a l a u th o r itie s , so th a t a t a n y tim e th e e x a c t
c o n d itio n o f e v e r y fo o t o f r o a d th r o u g h o u t F r a n c e m a y be
a s c e r ta in e d .
H e r e i s a s y s t e m , t h e b e s t in t h e w o r l d , o v e r w h i c h m a g
n i f i c e n t h i g h w a y s v a s t v o l u m e s o f f a r m p r o d u c t s fin d t h e i r w a y
a t a c o s t o f f r o m 7 c e n t s t o 1 1 c e n t s a t o n p e r m i le . O v e r t h e s e
r o a d s m o t o r c a r s c a n t r a v e l 50 m ile s a n h o u r w it h o u t d a n g e r .
T h e y a r e b e a u t ifu l. T h e y a r e lin e d o n e it h e r s id e b y o r n a m e n t a l
a n d fr u it trees.
T h e y a r e o f g r e a t c o m m e r c ia l v a lu e .
T hey
lo w e r th e c o s t o f liv in g , b o t h to t h e t o w n a n d th e c o u n tr y , b y
fu r n is h in g th e c it y w it h c h e a p fo o d a n d fu r n is h in g th e c o u n tr y
w i t h c h e a p f r e i g h t in t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e i r p r o d u c t s t o t o w n a n d
th e ir m a te r ia ls b a c k to th e fa rm .
I n F r a n c e a t t h e p r e s e n t t i m e t h e r e a r e 2 3 ,6 5 6 m i l e s o f n a
t i o n a l r o u t e s , w h i c h c o s t $ 3 0 3 ,9 7 5 ,0 0 0 t o b u i l d . T h e r e a r e 3 1 0 ,8 9 8
m i l e s o f l o c a l h i g h w a y s , b u i l t a t a c o s t o f $ 3 0 8 ,8 0 0 ,0 0 0 , o f w h i c h
t h e S t a t e f u r n i s h e d $ 8 1 ,0 6 0 ,0 0 0 a n d t h e i n t e r e s t e d l o c a l i t i e s
$ 2 2 7 ,7 4 0 ,0 0 0 .
T h e r o a d s o f F r a n c e a r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o fiv e
d iffe r e n t d iv is io n s :
F ir s t. T h e n a tio n a l ro u te s , tr a v e r s in g th e v a r io u s d e p a rtm e n ts
a n d c o n n e c t in g im p o r t a n t c e n t e r s o f p o p u la t io n .
S e c o n d . T h e d e p a r t m e n t r o u te s , c o n n e c t in g th e im p o r ta n t
c e n t e r s o f a s in g le d e p a r t m e n t a n d b is e c t in g th e n a tio n a l r o u te s .
T h i r d . H i g h w a y s o f g e n e r a l c o m m u n i c a t i o n , l i t t l e le s s i m p o r
t a n t t h a n th e p r e v io u s c la s s .
F o u r th . H ig h w a y s o f p u b lic in te r e s t, t r a v e r s in g a s in g le c a n
to n a n d c o n n e c t in g r e m o t e v illa g e s w it h m o r e im p o r ta n t r o a d s .
F ifth . P r iv a t e ro a d s.
In th e G e r m a n E m p ir e a s im ila r s y s te m p r e v a ils , a n d th e se
g r e a t n a tio n s , in c lu d in g t h e o t h e r n a t io n s o f E u r o p e , f o r th a t
m a tt e r , s e t a n e x a m p le t o t h e p e o p le o f t h e U n it e d S ta te s w h ic h
th e y w o u ld d o w e ll to fo llo w .
I n E n g l a n d t h e y h a v e a m u c h m o r e l o c a l i z e d s y s t e m , a n d in
c o n s e q u e n c e t h e r e i s in E n g l a n d t h e m o s t s t r i k i n g e x a m p l e o f
la c k o f u n ifo r m it y o f r o a d w o r k a n d o f e x c e s s iv e e x p e n d it u r e
in p r o p o r t i o n t o m i le a g e .
T h e m o s t p e r fe c t r o a d sy s te m , h o w e v e r , is th a t o f F r a n c e ,
w h i c h h a s t h e most highly centralized m a n a g e m e n t o f a l l t h e
r o a d sy stem s.
I t is n o t m y p u r p o s e , M r. P r e s id e n t , t o g o in t o d e t a il w it h
r e g a r d t o th e b e s t m e th o d s o f c o n s t r u c tio n , b u t o n ly to p o in t o u t
t h e e x t r e m e i m p o r t a n c e o f centralized initiative a n d centralized
knowledge proceeding with efficiency upon a fixed basis.
38360— 10851
I do not regard Senate bill 2935, which I advocate, as neces
sarily an absolutely perfect bill, but I do regard it as a step of
very great importance, aud I do believe that out of this meas
ure, if it be enacted into a law, we would enter upon a proper
system.
I believe we should have a legislative reference bureau (for
which I have heretofore contended), for the convenience of
Congress in digesting and arranging data and making pre
liminary draftSto f bills and which in this case might thoroughly
work out a perfected plan suitable to the use of the United
States under our particular form of government, providing a
system for the most perfect cooperation between the National
and State Governments for the development of good roads in
this country.
T H E COMMERCIAL VALUE OF GOOD ROADS.
Mr. Halbert P. Gillette, an engineer of ability, has with great
pains estimated the cost o f hauling agricultural products to and
from the farm. (S. Doc. No. 204, GOth Cong., 2d sess., p. 56.)
The average haul in the United States is 12 miles o f 2,000
pounds at a cost of 25 cents a ton, on an average o f $3 a ton
for delivering farm products from the farm to the railway.
In France the cost of hauling a ton a mile is 7 cents and in
Germany and England from 9 cents to 12 cents. The direct loss
on the tonnage actually hauled in the United States is perfectly
enormous. The Interstate Commerce Commission reports show
that the railroads handle upward of 900,000,000 tons of freight,
of which 32 per cent, or approximately 275,000,000 tons, are the
products of forest, field, and miscellany.
Estimating only 200,000,000 tons at a cost o f $3 a ton, we
have $600,000,000 in this item, o f which over $400,000,000 is a
flat loss, due to bad roads: but these figures are only a fraction
o f the haul. To this must be added the enormous tonnage hauled
from farm to farm, from farm to village, from farm to town,
from farm to canals, wharves, and docks for shipment by water.
The unemployed land, the defectively developed land, the wasted
products not hauled because of the expense and o f impassable
roads, the lack o f intensive farming at any distance from cities
because o f the expensive hauling are grave factors o f the huge
loss due to bad roads. The loss by bad roads upon any reason
able basis would probably exceed $1,000.000,000 per annum, or
the cost of conducting our National Government.
We have bad roads standing as a barrier, preventing the
hauling o f products from the farm, because the cost of hauling
is too high and products are wasted on the farm.
Lands distant from market are not cultivated at all and
farms reasonable near to the markets are not put Into crops
which would be productive of large bulk, because o f the
ruinous expense of hauling such products, and for this rea
son there are huge areas uncultivated in the United States, esti
mated by the Department of Agriculture at over 400,000,000
acres. Improved roads would develop this vast domain and
make food products cheaper. It would lead to intensive and
more extended farming. Where the average value is $8.72 per
acre of wheat, $7.03 an acre of corn, the value o f vegetables in
1899 was $42 an acre and o f small fruits $80 an acre.
The commercial value of good roads, therefore, would mean a
saving of a thousand million dollars annually. It would mean
38360— 10851
bringing into cultivation vast areas o f land now uncultivated.
It would bring intensive farming on the lands which are now
cultivated. It would mean very much cheaper food products.
It would mean the improved financial, social, religious, and edu
cational condition of the farmers.
It would mean a vast increase in the farming population
drawn from the congested cities for the benefit of city and
country alike.
IT WOULD INCREASE THE VALUE OF FARM LAND.
We have about 850,000,000 acres of farm land improved and
unimproved in the United States.
The good roads will exercise a tremendous influence over in
creasing the value o f farm lands accessible to good roads.
By “ accessible” it must not be understood as being imme
diately on a perfected highway. It is an important fact that a
team o f horses for tiro hours out of a da;/ can exert about four
times their average tractive force without injury. For this
reason they may pull a heavy load for 3 or 4 miles over a dirt
road to a perfect highway without injury, and then carry the
heavy load easily to market a long distance without harm, so
that the farmers within 3 or 4 miles on either side of a good
highway would be directly benefited by it; and with the King
drag road leading off 4 or 5 miles on either side of a perfected
highway all of the farmers of the country could be brought in
touch with good roads at a minimum expense to the great in
crease of their farm-land values.
RAD ROADS MEANS LOSS OF POPULATION.
The sections of country which have lost in population by the
last census are conspicuous for impassable roads. In 25 coun
ties, for example, selected at random by the United States Office
of Public Roads, the population between 1800 and 1900 fell
away over 3,000 persons in each county where the roads showed
an average o f only 1} per cent of improved roads, while in an
other 25 counties, in which there was an average of 40 per cent
of improved roads, the population in each county had increased
over 31,000.
It is density of population and accessibility o f land which in
crease the value of land.
GOOD HOADS MEAN BETTER SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES.
Improved roads mean improved schools and churches. Where
the roads are very bad the children can not easily attend school,
nor can the people easily attend the churches, but with good
roads they could do so. In the States of Massachusetts. Rhode
Island, Connecticut, Ohio, and Indiana, in which, in 1904, about
35 per cent o f the roads were improved. 77 out o f each 100
pupils enrolled attended the schools regularly; but in the five
States of Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas. Georgia, and South
Dakota, which had, in 1904. only 1.5 per cent o f good roads,
only 59 out of each 100 pupils enrolled could attend public
schools regularly. Thus good roads enable 30 per cent more
children to attend school.
THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE PUBLIC ROADS.
We have to-day 2,155,000 miles of public roads within the
United States. Less than ISO,000 miles are macadamized or
improved with hard surfacing.
More than nine-tenths of the public roads and highways of
the United States in the rainy season are almost unfit for use,
38360— 10851
8
and a large part in a very rainy season are utterly unfit for use
and impassable, to the grave injury of tlie farmer and the equal
injury o f the town people who depend upon him for regular
sup-plies of food.
In some of tlie States improved State methods are being put
into force, but the department o f good roads of the United States
Government should be stimulated in the highest degree, so as to
furnish the people of the United States with full information upon
the important commercial, financial, educational, and social as
pects of this great national problem. The department should
be put in a position where it can stimulate public attention and
bring all of the States into harmony with this great scientific
problem. Road building and road maintenance is a great
science. It has taken generations of men to learn the best
methods of road building and maintenance, and the highest
knowledge in the world in scientific road building should be
placed at the disposal of the humblest citizens of this Republic
so that he could be a direct beneficiary of the advancement of
human knowledge in this respect.
THE RELATION OF PUBLIC HOADS TO THE FARMER.
Farm life should be made more attractive. No matter how
fertile the land or how favorable the climate, if the farmer is
imprisoned by bad roads, he can not enjoy fully farm life. He
can not conveniently reach the school, the church, the town, or
his friendly neighbors if the roads are very bad.
We can not expect the greatest social, moral, mental, and
material development of the farmer if the roads are bad.
Only 8.2 per cent of the total road mileage of the United States
is improved at the present time, yet we expended approximately
$79,000,000 in work on roads in 1904. The expenditure has
been entirely out of proportion to the results accomplished. The
reason for this I have pointed out. It is due to the extreme
localization, bad road laws, bad administration, and lack o f
coordination. We have little skilled supervision, with but few
men with a knowledge of road building or of any profound
interest in it. The laws must be changed, and they can only
be changed and greatly improved by instructing the public mind
and public men.
The profit of the farmer is represented by the difference be
tween the cost of production and transportation and the selling
price. If he can cut the transportation in half, he will materially
benefit himself financially; and if the cost of transportation
could be reduced $000,000,000. the farmer would easily be bene
fited to the extent of one-half of this saving, granting that the
city inhabitants would benefit by the other half o f the saving.
We complain of the high cost of living, and do not suffi
ciently analyze the reasons for the high cost. Lower trans
portation means lower cost of living, both to the farmer and
city resident.
We should perfect the national waterways likewise and con
trol the railways to lower the cost of transportation.
The mean cost o f carrying wheat from New York to Liver■pooi—by water 3,100 miles—is only 3.8 cents per bushel, while
it costs the farmer on an average more than that to haul his
wheat to the railway station.
The consular reports show that hauling in Germany, France,
and England is frequently as low as 7 and 8 cents a ton a mile,
and rarely higher than 13 cents.
38360— 10851
9
The cost on fair earth roads is 25 cents a ton per mile; on
earth roads containing ruts, 39 cents: on sandy roads when
wet, 32 cents; on sandy roads ‘‘when dry, 64 cents; on black
gumbo when thoroughly wet passing is impossible. Steep
grades on the roads is another serious tax on transportation,
because “ the chain is no stronger than the weakest link.”
If the farmer has good roads, he can take to the town two
or three times as much in a load as he does now. lie could
haul to town from a distance two or three times as great as
he does now. He could haul to town products which now are
prohibited by the expense of hauling. He could raise a larger
variety of products suitable for marketing. He would be
directly benefited by making the town, the people, and the school
more accessible.
He would be benefited by making his neighbors easier of
access, and in that way his social pleasure and personal happi
ness would be increased.
fie would be able to deliver his farm products to the town
every day in the year, and therefore would have a steady mar
ket throughout the year for his products, whereas he may be
by muddy roads excluded for two and three months at a time
from his market, and the town people in like manner may be
deprived of vegetables, fowl, eggs, milk, and other farm products
which are essential to their comfort.
In Bradley County, Tenn., bonds were issued for 160 miles
of excellent macadam roads, and lands that were valueless
before these roads were built now find ready purchasers at
from $15 to $30 per acre.
E FFECT OF ROAD IM P R O V E M E N T ON T R A F F IC .
If the roads were improved, traffic would not be congested
at one season and very limited at another season, because the
transportation of the crops could be made at convenience and
uniformly without the interruptions of bad weather. The
railroads could, therefore, maintain a more regular service
with a smaller equipment, fewer employees, and less cost of
operation. This means cheaper freight rate for all the people
and lower cost of living.
I have not taken into account the wear and tear on teams
due to bad roads, the destruction o f wagons and vehicles, the
danger to life and limb from bad roads.
THE R ELATIO N OF COOD ROADS TO THE P U B L IC HEALTH.
If the roads are perfectly good, the physician or surgeon can
with the modern motor car go to the aid of one in danger of
death almost immediately, but when the roads are impassable
death might ensue before relief could be obtained. If the
roads are wet and bad and children march to school with wet
and muddy feet, their vitality is lowered and loss of life must
ensue.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CITT AND THE COUNTRY.
Many men complain that there has been a steady movement
from country to city. The reason is plain. The city is more
attractive to live in because it has perfect roads of asphalt,
macadam, and Belgian block, and concrete sidewalks. No per
son need to have his feet muddy in going from one point to an
other. In the city is concentrated many of the things that
human beings desire, but if the country had good roads it
would be a more desirable place to live in than the city. The
38360— 10851
10
has good air, free from dust and smoke. He is
away from the roaring noise o f tlie city and tlie everlasting
grind of the wheels of the street car. In the country he has
his own fresh food, prepared by nature, at his hand,; poultry,
eggs, fresh milk, cream, butter, fresh vegetables o f all kinds,
and fresh fruits—peace, young animal life to interest and
please him, and nature smiling back in his face and giving him
10,000 per cent for every seed he plants. With good roads he
can come to the city when he likes and go back to his peaceful,
pleasant home, satisfied.
City life enervates and weakens human beings, as a rule, be
cause of the nervous strain of city life, while in the country a
man grows strong, with steady nerves, good lungs, and brawny
limbs. The conditions of country life should be made more
attractive. The social intercourse and pleasure o f country
people, proper school facilities, and church advantages should
be made available with good roads. From the country has
sprung the greatest men of genius and patriotism. Nearly half
of all of our people are engaged in agriculture, and they furnish
half of the taxes and produce three-fourths of the wealth of
the Nation. I am in favor, for their sakes, o f stimulating the
building of good roads, but let us remember that the building of
good roads is just as important to the city man who lives on the
produce o f the country as it is to the countryman who raises
that food supply. It is of equal importance and value to both
the residents o f the city and of the country. It is of equal im
portance to the professional man and to the laborer, to the
farmer and the city merchant, to the producer and the con
sumer. It means lower cost of living to all. It means great
commercial and financial advantage to all. It means greater
pleasure and enjoyment of life to all.
Many of our Government expenditures are made without re
turn, but here is a magnificent investment, which, if it were
based upon the credit system, would pay 15 per cent on every
dollar judiciously invested and would add to our national wealth
more rapidly than any other national investment into which we
could invest our national credit or our national energies. The
experience of other States has shown the importance of the
State taking the initiative and guiding the activities of the
counties and in this way getting greater results. This has been
fully explained by the Senator from Virginia as the experience
in that State.
c o u n tr y m a n
AN AVENUE TO EMPLOY TITH UNEMPLOYED.
If we had this system established we could give employment
to the unemployed at rates that would not attract men already
engaged but would attract men out of work and in need. There
are hundreds of thousands of men o f this class available.
Mr. President, this bill ought to be immediately reported and
passed. I remind Republicans that public sentiment has so far
crystallized that in their national platform of 1908 they cor
dially indorsed aid to good roads in the following language:
W e recognize tlie social and economic advantages of good country
roads, maintained more and more largely at public expense and less
and less a t the expense of the abutting property owner. In this work
we commend the growing practice of the National Agricultural Depart
ment by experiment and otherwise to make clear to the public the best
methods of road construction.
And I remind my brother Democrats that in our last plat
form we had the following plank.
38360— 10851
11
P O S T ROADS.
W e favor Federal aid to State and local authorities in the construc
tion and maintenance of post roads.
Let us fulfill in good faitli our party pledges.
THE VALUE OP INTENSIVE FARMING---- “ BACK TO THE LAND."
“ Gentlemen, it would be impossible to exaggerate the im
portance of the objects contemplated by the National Farm Land
Congress.
“ In 40 years we shall have over 200,000,000 people, and this
estimate does not fully take into account the geometric pro
gression which immigration makes probable under the enormous
growth o f seagoing vessels of mammoth size.
“ Our breadstuff exports in 25 years has decreased 24 per
cent, notwithstanding large areas of new lands producing wheat
and corn.
“ Our home demand for wheat in a quarter o f a century has
grown 80 per cent more than the supply of wheat.
“ The object contemplated by the National Farm Land Con
gress is to develop farm lands, encourage home building on the
farm, increase the productiveness of our farm land, make our
farms more accessible by the building of good roads and im
proved national and local highways, and make our farms a
potential factor in promoting the wealth, the health, the beauty,
and happiness o f the Nation. Nothing could be of greater
national importance.
“ With these objects I find myself deeply in sympathy. One
of my earliest recollections was of the intensive farming of a
piece of land in Lynchburg, Va., of about 21 acres, surrounded
by a high brick w all; the inclosed land was divided up iuto a
dozen or more plots of ground, with graveled walks lined in cer
tain parts of the garden with dwarf box and with flowers.
“ Some of the squares were used for vegetables, Irish and
sweet potatoes, beets, parsnips, salsify, okra, radishes, onions,
lettuce, cabbage, mustard, asparagus, tomatoes, several kinds of
sweet corn, the watermelon, cantaloupe, and sweet pumpkin for
cooking, rhubarb, and other succulents. Other beds against the
brick wall had beds of strawberries, raspberries, blackberries,
currauts, gooseberries, and various vines.
“ Even in the winter this land furnished the table with vege
tables stored in sand pits, and with fruits preserved and canned,
and with pickles, marmalades, and other things edible.
“ I remember sweet herbs in this garden—of thyme, sage, etc.
I recall with affection certain arbors devoted to the grape,
which, in their season, had a special charm for me. Arouud the
edge of these squares were many beautiful varieties of fruit—of
peaches, o f pears, the sweet Sickle, the Royal Bartlett, the Dam
son, the plum, the cherry, the apple. The yellow June apples
in that garden were sweet enough to tempt, and often did tempt,
a small boy about my size to risk an appearance before the
Throne o f Grace without any other preparation than an incredi
ble number o f June apples eaten in reckless disregard of conse
quences.
“ I have never seen anywhere a more beautiful variety of
hyacinths and tulips than grew in this garden, with all the oldfashioned English flowers—the jonquil, the narcissus, the crocus,
the lilies o f the valley, the phlox, the snapdragon, and many
others; the Easter lily, the tiger lily, and a great variety of
roses.
3 8 3 6 0 — 10851
“ I remember the yellow and red honeysuckle, covering a trellised summerhouse, mingling its fragrance with the pleasant
odors of the climbing rose which helped to cover it.
“ As I used to enter this charming spot of land from the dining
room door, I recall passing between two trees o f cre]>e myrtle and,
a few steps farther on. by two large shrubs of the euonymus.
There were several large box trees in the garden, whose thick
cover afforded a hiding place for many birds, whose twilight
repose I used to disturb for my amusement by shaking the trees.
••There was in this garden a large clump o f cane which fur
nished the boys o f the place with convenient fishing rods, and
everywhere throughout this 2 acres was manifest the highest
intelligence, the finest taste, and unceasing industry.
“ The guardian spirit of this garden was my mother, under
whose hand everything which grew out of the ground always
flourished. I have always thought that the ministering angels
who supervise the growth of plants must have specially loved
the gracious spirit of my mother, for her plants lived, no matter
what happened to the gardens of other people. I shall never be
satisfied until I am able to own and to enjoy such a garden as
she had, and with which she made my boyhood days happy.
Adjacent to the garden was a big smokehouse where we put up
our own meat, and a yard where the chickens and ducks flour
ished and helped to feed the family.
“ I may be forgiven these personal reminiscences when I point
to the fact that this two acres and a half of land furnished a
very large household with the greatest abundance of food in the
form of vegetables, fruits, berries, grapes, throughout the year,
as well as with an abundance of beautiful flowers. It was in
tensive farming. Every foot of the ground was kept thoroughly
manured, the plants were transplanted from time to time where
their nature required it, and the life habits of every plant were
studied and thoroughly understood.
“ In contrast to the productive power of this two and one-half
acres, I have seen, in Indian Territory, a i>oor farmer trying to
cultivate enormous areas of land with a single team, and with
the invariable result that his crop was so poor as to afford him
and his family not even the necessaries of life, much less its
conveniences or the luxury of fruits and flowers. Such a
farmer, with bad and muddy roads to travel, is practically
isolated from the market, from the school, from the church, and
from other conveniences and pleasures of civilized life, and
can not conveniently or cheaply deliver to market even those
things which he does raise.
“ The man who works more land than he can cultivate thor
oughly well wastes his time; he does more: He makes life uphappy for himself, for the faithful woman who loves him, and
for the little children who look to him for guidance. He is not
as useful nor as happy a citizen as he would be if he concen
trated himself on 40 acres, cultivated a garden, kept a few cows
for milk and butter, raised chickens and other fowls and do
mestic animals out of which the profits of the farm arise.
COMPARISON W ITH ENGLAND, GERMANY, AND FRANCE.
“ In England, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland the
people obtain much higher results than in the United States.
The average wheat production of Great Ilritain is over 32
bushels to the acre, and in the United States only a little over
13 bushels to the acre.
38360— 10851
13
“ I spent the summer in Germany and France, and there I
saw that every foot of the ground was thoroughly cultivated.
It was divided up into very small tracts, and off at a distance
would look like strips of carpet laid upon the rolling fields.
There was constant rotation of crops; they were busily engaged
in fertilizing with manures, making the ground richer. The
farm roads were in splendid condition, and thousands of miles
of surveyed, carefully leveled and graded turnpikes afforded
the farmer cheap transportation, so that a single team might
move 4 or 5 tons with less difficulty than half a ton could be
moved by the same team on some of the terrible roads in the
United States. What an object lesson to the people of the
United States are these splendid roads, which increase the value
of the farm, bring the farmer nearer to every convenience of
civilized life, make his products more valuable, and make the
conditions of life much more attractive.
“ Along these roads I observed miles o f fruit trees, the cherry,
the apple, the pear, and every one o f them marked with a num
ber indicating ownership.
“ I think I never saw a house so poor that it did not have its
vegetable garden and its garden of flowers.
“ In coming from Fifty-seventh Street down to the Audi
torium, on the Illinois Central, the back lots of the American
homes, seen from the cars, shabby, dirty, and unkempt, are
absolutely distressing and shocking to those who have i»ositive
views in regard to making land either useful or beautiful.
“ Every such back lot in Germany and France and England or
Belgium or Holland would be a valuable vegetable garden
ornamented with flowers. We can be engaged in no better busi
ness than in leading our people back to the use, and the perfect
use, of our most precious heritage—the land. Let us get back
to the land.
THE VALUE OF THE FARM AS A NATIONAL RESOURCE.
“ Our farms produced last year eight thousand millions of
created wealth. Our cotton crop alone furnished enough export
cotton to give us a balance of trade in our favor. The output of
the American farm, by proper cultivation, could, however, be
immediately doubled, and by reclaiming waste places with
proper cultivation, could easily produce over twenty billions of
wealth per annum—a sum about equal to the total accumulation
of a century in the banking resources in all o f our 25,000 banks.
“ The work o f such men as Luther Burbank, of Santa Rosa,
Oak, in improving plant life has a value of which our people
generally have had an adequate conception.
“ In Oklahoma a new plant has been developed from the com
mon seeding Bermuda, called the “ Hardy Bermuda,” which has
great national value. It has been developed by careful selection
of plants which have withstood severe freezing. The plant has
as good nutritive quality as timothy; it comes up early in the
spring; it has a root over a foot deep: it grows almost as thick
as the hair on the head; it grows luxuriantly in the face o f dry
weather; will successfully stand the most extreme drouth; is
not killed by many days o f overflow; will grow on alkali spots
and in the sand. It will produce a very large amount of food
to the acre, and is an excellent grazing grass. It is impossible
to exaggerate the value of a plant o f this character, which will
convert land heretofore unproductive into productive areas of
38360— 10851
14
great value. Our people must have food, and this plant will
produce great food supplies from land heretofore producing
nothing. We must emphasize making our lands more productive
by using proper suitable plant life and concentrating labor on
the land.
IMPROVEMENT OF THE NATIONAL HEALTH.
“ The annual death rate of New Zealand is nine to a thousand,
and o f the various Australian States, ten to a thousand. In the
United States it is over sixteen to a thousand—60 per cent more
than in Australia. If our people can he led back to the farm,
where they can get plenty o f fresh air, fresh vegetables, milk
and butter, and chickens, we will save these lives which now
amount to over a half million beings per annum in excess of
what it ought to be.
“ The tables of mortality show that this high death rate is
very largely due to the bad housing, bad food, and bad sanitary
conditions o f the very poor in our congested cities.
“ In the tight on tuberculosis abundant fresh air has been
demonstrated to be essential to a recovery. Abundant fresh air
is essential to keep people well who are not now sick, and is all
the more important when they become afflicted with the ex
tremely dangerous tubercle bacillus. Let us encourage our peo
ple to get back to the land, and we shall greatly improve the
national health.
IMPROVEMENT IN SELF-RELIANCE AND OTHER MORAL QUALITIES.
“ In cultivating the land, all of the moral qualities are stimu
lated, independence, self-reliance, initiative, courage, honesty of
mind. In working on the land, a man is able to provide his own
com fort; he can build his own house with his own hands; he
can supply every article of food he needs, and create a surplus
sufficient to buy other things. He receives nothing for which
he does not give an equivalent; he promotes his own comfort,
his own self-respect, and his own dignity. The greatest men of
the Nation have come from the farm. The man on the farm,
who is cultivating a small piece of land of his own, need have
no fear of being suddenly discharged by his employer and left
with a family on his hands to feed, and no means to buy food or
pay rent until he finds another job. On the farm there is no
danger in losing his job.
“ This gives a man courage, self-reliance, and those moral
qualities which go to make up good citizenship. Without the
private virtue of the individual citizen our Republic can not
rise to its great and honorable destiny. Let us get back to the
land. Let us improve the roads that lead to the farm and from
the farm and give the farm greater attractiveness because of
its accessibility to the towns and cities.
THE VALUE OF SMALL HOLDINGS.
“ The French Revolution was due to the abuse of the unre
stricted land holdings of the nobility, from which vast incomes
were derived, thus leading to a great extravagance o f the landholding class in the face of the extreme poverty and misery of
the unemployed landless masses. The landholders were so rich
they did not need to use the land in full, but devoted very iarge
areas to game preserves, while the poorer French people, who
had also been brought into the world by the hand of the Om
nipotent, were denied access to the land by the landlords, who
preferred to see their estates used in large part for purposes
38300— 10851
15
of amusement, as hunting parks. The French law, of course,
sustained the French landlord until the corrupt extravagance
o f the landholding class and the abject hunger and misery of
the multitudes led to the overthrow of the laws which permitted
this condition, and the bloody French Revolution followed.
“ The revolution resulted in the subdivision of France into
small landholdings, which, under the laws of inheritance, was
still further subdivided.
“ The result of this subdivision has been intensive cultiva
tion and great agricultural wealth from the soil of France,
making it one o f the richest nations in the world. The reverse
of this policy is seen in Spain and Mexico, where huge estates
have been permitted to exist, with the unavoidable result that
the productive capacity of the land has not been develoi>ed, and
where the extremes o f great wealth and abject poverty are in
more marked contrast than in any other civilized country.
“ The United States should pursue a policy of small landholdings, and the State of Oklahoma has led the way by pass
ing laws imposing a progressive tax on large holdings of land,
for the purpose of stimulating actual home building, of pro
moting the greatest productive capacity of the land, and for the
abatement of the nuisance and danger o f large landed monopoly.
“ The smaller subdivision o f land will lead, therefore, directly
to its intensive cultivation, and just in degree as the lands are
thoroughly well cultivated, just in that degree will the value of
farm lands increase, and with the increase in the value of farm
lands, and the growth of their productions, just in that degree
will city property and suburban property increase in value.
“ Likewise, (his will lead to the building of good i-oads, and to
the increase of the liberty, of the independence, and of the
personal happiness of all o f our people, both on the farm and
in the cities. Our cities are sadly congested and millions of
people could be led to the farm, both to their own welfare and
to the advantage of the Nation. The pimp, the cadet, the white
woman slave would be more useful and happier as an honest
plowman, gardener, and milkmaid.
“ THERE IS A CHARM ABOUT THE FARM.
“ Under proper conditions nothing can be more beautiful or
more attractive than the farm life. In times past with bad
roads and muddy weather, and fields too big for the farmer to
cultivate successfully, men have often worked themselves down,
have grown weary, have made themselves poor, by ill-directed
effort, and have made themselves, their wives, and children sor
rowful and miserable in consequence. Under such conditions
the farm has often been like a prison instead of being a place
of liberty, prosperity, and happiness. The boys and girls have
too often been glad to leave the farm to get away from its dull
routine and solitude. Rut the time has come when there should
be a complete reversal of all this. We have learned how to
avoid these tilings and the valuable lesson should be universally
taught and made a common heritage.
“ Let the man—if he have too much land— sow his excess in
grass, in hardy Bermuda ; let him confine himself to what he can
thoroughly cultivate; use only plant life suitable to the seasons,
as kaffir corn and mllo maize for dry weather, and learn how
to do the work w ell; let him surround himself with a beautiful
garden; let the women and children be taught to love these
things and the farm will become a lovely home.
38 3 6 0 — 10851
w
16
“ It’s a good thing to keep the children on the farm, away
from the temptations and evil suggestions that surround them
on every hand in the city. In the light of modern invention,
with our wonderful modern transportation, with electric rail
roads running everywhere, with rural mail delivery, with cheap
power, heat, and light, with improving values in farm products,
with cheapening goods of every description, every family man
should have a piece of land, if it is only 10 acres, or 1 acre,
upon which he might surround himself with the fragrance and
the blossom and the fruit of plant life, where he might raise
healthy, happy children. What can be mere beautiful, or more
valuable than a well-kept vegetable gardeu, tilled with all
kinds of foods of every flavor—filled with berries and grapes,
and trees bearing fruits and nuts, and ornamented with the
endless procession of flowers each advancing season affords?
“ What more attractive than to be surrounded bj' the young
and cheerful life of the farm—young chickens, ducks, turkeys,
calves, lambs, pigs, colts, and last but not least, the opportunity
to have a few good dogs, whose love and companionship is not
the least of the attractions of the farm.
“ ‘ Back to the farm ’ should be the bugle call to the youth of
our land.
“ Back to the farm, where peace and quiet and sound, refresh
ing sleep follows happy labor, where we can hear the birds,
singing their songs o f thanksgiving in the early morning among
blossoming trees, where homely joys can give a life o f happiness,
where men and women grow sound of heart and strong of limb
and nerve.
“ Back to the farm, with the friendly brute for neighbor.
Where honest content will make amends for every city glamour.
“ I should like to see an agricultural school of practical in
struction and o f plant and seed distribution in every agricul
tural county in the United States, where the care of cattle and
horses and sheep and swine and domestic fowl and the econo
mies of farm life and its productive capacity should he prop
erly taught; where the great lesson might be taught and em
phasized by the Government—both National and State— that
there is no profession more honorable than farming, and that
no occupation is of such vital importance to the wealth and
health of the Nation.
“ I rejoice at an opportunity of giving expression before the
National Farm Land Congress of the deep interest which I fee!
iu this matter, and I trust that this congress may l>o the begin
ning o f an organization which will emphasize in the most powerful manner the importance of the farm to our national wealth
and to our national health and happiness.
“ This congress should, above all things, emphasize the great
importance o f good roads to and from the farms of the country.
It should encourage State and National aid to good roads, so as
to bring to the exi>enditure on road building the greatest degree
of intelligence and efficiency and concentrated effort. This is,
perhaps, the most important factor of all in making the farm
more desirable to the people, in making the farm more attrac
tive, in making it more remunerative, and giving to it those
elements which are necessary and essential to peace of mind
and to the prosperity and happiness o f the farmer.”
383G0— 10851
o
THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
WHAT THEY ARE
WHERE THEY ARE IN USE
HOW THEY WORK
PRESENTED
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K LA H O M A
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STATES
OCTOBER 8, 1914
W A SH IN G T O N
G O VER N M EN T PR IN T IN G OFFICE
1914
cr.122— 14187
T
PRESENTED
BY
H O H.
KOBEET
L.
OWEN.
TH E INITIATIVE- AND REFERENDUM.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I ask permission to insert in the
R ecord a memorandum relating to the initiative and referen
dum, explaining what it is. where it is in use, and how it works.
The VICE PRESIDENT. There being no objection, the re
quest of the Senator from Oklahoma is granted.
The matter referred to is as follows:
T h e I n it ia t iv e a nd R e f e r e n d u m — W h a t I t I s — W h e r e It I s in
U se— H ow I t W o r k s.
W hat Is direct legislation?
Direct legislation is the right of the people to enact or reject laws
by their votes at the polls, just as they now vote upon candidates or
constitutional amendments. It is exercised through the initiative and
referendum.
W hat is the “ initiative ” ?
The initiative is a method by which the people can propose a law or
constitutional amendment by petition.
The petition is tiled with the
secretary of state four months prior to a general election, and sub
mitted by him to the voters at the ensuing election. If a majority of
the voters voting on the question vote “ yes,” the law is enacted and
goes into operation. If a m ajority vote “ no,” it is rejected. Exam ple:
The people of Maine for years demanded a direct primary law.
The
legislature refused to pass it. An initiative petition, signed by 12,000
voters, was filed. The law was submitted at the general election of 1911
and adopted by a vote of 65,810 to 21,774. It has since been in opera
tion.
W hat is the “ referendum ” ?
The referendum is a method by which the people may reject at the
polls acts of the legislature which do not suit them. A petition against
a law must be filed within 90 days alter the legislature adjourns. The
law is then suspended and a vote is taken upon it at the next general
election.
If a m ajority vote “ no,” the law is vetoed ; if “ yes,” the
legislature is sustained.
E xam ple: The Legislature of South Dakota
passed a State militia bill.
It was opposed because it put an added
heavy expense on the taxpayers and because the people were against
militarism.
A referendum petition was tiled, the bill was suspended
from operation, and rejected at the general election of 1910 by a vote
of 5 7,440 “ no ” to 17,854 “ yes.” And so the law was “ vetoed ” by
the people.
Are the initiative and referendum “ new ” and “ revolutionary ” doc
trines ?
No. From the beginning of our Government, the Amenlean people
have retained the right to vote on certain questions, such as State
constitutions, bond issues, city charters, location of State and county
seats of government, boundary lines, local option, etc. Also they have
voted on amendments to State constitutions, city charters, and occa
sional laws, but only when the legislature would permit them.
The
initiative and referendum g i t e ' the people the power to vote on any
measure they desire and when they want to, without the permission of
the legislature.
How large petitions are required?
Eight per cent of the voters of a State are usually required on
Initiafive petitions and 5 per cent upon referendum petitions. A better
system is to require a flat number of signatures. The splendid amend
ment pending in Mississippi requires 7,500 qualified voters upon initia
tive petitions and 6,000 for the referendum. Maine requires 12,000 for
the initiative and 10,000 for the referendum. One man In convention
or legislature can make a motion and 10,000 citizens combined should
not be denied this right.
65122— 14187
3
W hy do we need the initiative and referendum?
“ The methods of our legislatures make the operations of political
machines easy, for very little of our legislation is formed and effected
by open debate upon the floor. Alm ost all of it is framed in lawyers’
offices, discussed in committee rooms, and passed without debate. Bills
that the machine aud its hackers do not desire are smothered iu com
mittee ; measures which they do desire are brought out and hurried
through their passage.
It happens again and again that great groups
of such hills are rushed through in the hurried hours that mark the
close of the legislative sessions, when every one's vigilance is weakened
by fatigue and when it is possible to do secret things.
* “ When we stand in the presence of these things and see how com
plete and sinister their operation has been, we cry out with no little
truth that we no longer have representative government.
* *
*
“ If we felt that we had genuine representative government in our
State legislatures no one would propose the initiative and referendum in
America
They are being proposed now as a means of bringing our
representatives back to the consciousness that what they are bound in
duty and in mere policy to do is to represent the sovereign people
whom they profess to serve, and not the private interests which creep
into thijir counsels by way of machine orders and committee con
ferences.
* *
*
“ It must be remembered by every candid man who discusses these
matters that we are contrasting the operation of the initiative and
referendum not with the representative government which we have in
theory, but with the actual state of affairs.” — (President Woodrow W il
son, in an address at Kansas City, May 5, 1011.)
W ho favor and who oppose direct legislation?
The men of every political party who believe in the American doc
trine of government by the people are favorable. It has been adopted
in the platforms of all political parties at various times and places.
Organizations of the producing classes, such as farm and labor organi
zations, reform organizations, etc., are especially strong for it. It is
strenuously— but often secretly— opposed by all reactionary politicians,
all the big trusts and corporations, nearly all the corporation lawyers,
and every corrupt political boss in the United States.
This is the
line-up.
Where are they in operation?
In many States and in a large number of cities throughout the
Nation. The following is a table of the 17 States in which initiative
and referendum amendments to the State constitutions have been sub
mitted by the legislatures and adopted by the people:
[From Bulletin No. 1, issued by the bureau of information of the Na
tional Popular Government League.
Compiled by Judson King, ex
ecutive secretary, Washington, D. C.]
Popular vote on
amendment.
Date of
adoption.
State.
For.
189S
1 9 0 0 .............
1902
1 9 0 5 ...
1 9 1 2 ..............
1 906 .
1 9 0 7 ...
1 9 0 8 ..............
1 9 0 8 ..............
1 9 1 0 ..............
1 9 1 0 ..............
1 9 1 1 ..............
1911
1912 .
1912
1912 .
1912. .
1 9 1 3 ...
Utah i ...................................................
Washington.........................................
Idaho1..................................................
2 3 ,8 1 6
1 9 ,2 1 9
6 2 ,0 2 4
4 ,3 9 3
9 ,9 5 6
3 6 ,3 7 4
1 8 0 ,3 8 3
5 1 ,9 9 1
17?;615
91 > 6 3
8 9 ,141
1 2 ,5 3 4
13& 181
1 8 9 ,2 0 0
1 1 0 ,1 1 0
4 3 ,6 5 8
3 1 2 ,5 9 2
2 1 9 ,3S8
Character of
amendment.
Against.
1 6 ,4 8 3
7 ,7 8 6
5 ,6 8 8
792
1 ,0 2 7
6 ,6 1 6
7 3 ,0 5 9
2 3 ,7 1 2
1 4 7 ,2 9 0
3 9 ,6 8 0
2 8 ,6 9 8
3 ,9 2 0
4 4 ,8 5 0
1 5 ,3 1 5
4 3 ,9 0 5
1 3 ,4 9 0
2 3 1 ,3 1 2
152 ,0 3 8
Defective.
Worthless.
Excellent.
Defective.
Good.
Defective.
Do.
Do.
Good.
Do.
Do.
Excellent.
Do.
Defective.
Do.
Worthless.
Fair.
Gool.
1 Amendment not self-executing; legislature has refused to pass an enabling act,
hence people havo never been able to use it.
1Referendum only; initiative added.
C5122— 14187
Is the movement growing?
Y e s ; and rapidly. Initiative and referendum amendments will be
voted upon at the general election November 3, 1914, in the States of
Mississippi, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, Texas, and Maryland.
It is a live political issue in nearly every other State.
B RY AN
FOR T H E
M IS S IS S IP P I
AM E N D M E N T .
Hon. W illiam Jennings Bryan, Secretary of State, has written a let
ter indorsing the Mississippi amendment and urging its adoption. It
shows his attitude upon the initiative and referendum. He says, in
p a rt:
“ I am gratified to learn that the Legislature of Mississippi at its last
session submitted a constitutional amendment providing for the initia
tive and referendum. I have examined the amendment and believe it
to be one of the best submitted. As you know, I have for a number of
years been an active advocate of the initiative and referendum. W e
put it in our State platform in Nebraska 18 years ago, and since that
time I have spoken for it in many States.
A DEM O CR ATIC P R IN C IP L E .
“ The principles underlying the initiative and referendum are so
democratic that these reforms are sure to commend themselves to the
Democratic Party.
It is commending itself, too, to a large majority of
the Republican Party, who at heart have faith in the capacity of the
people for self-government. There are only two objections that can lie
honestly made to the initiative and referendum. One is the aristo
cratic objection, which is based upon the lack of confidence in the masses,
and the other the plutocratic, which is based upon the idea that the
masses can not be trusted to deal justly with property interests.
T H E P E O rr.E CAN HE TRU STED .
“ Both of these objections are groundless. The masses have proven,
wherever given an opportunity, their ability to deal with questions of
government. The aristocratic idea of representative government is that
the people themselves are not intelligent enough to decide public ques
tions, but should select a few superior men to think.for them and act
for them. This reasonin') is, of course, fallacious as well as undemo
cratic. The people can act more in te llig e n tly upon ■
' reform
of government than then can upon an individual, because theg can. un
derstand a proposed reform better than then can a p erson ; and then,
too, a proposed reform docs not change after the election, tchilc the
individual may.
T H E P LU T O C RAT S ARE WRONG.
“ The plutocratic argument against the initiative and referendum is
equally unsound. The people are conservative; they can be trusted
not to violate the rights of property. Experience will show that viola
tions of property rights are more often traceable to the avarice of those
who are able to obtain a monopoly than to the masses, who can have no
selfish interest in the doing of injustice.
T H E DANGER FROM NEGLECT.
“ I have no doubt that a m ajority of those who vote upon the pro
posed amendment will vote for i t ; the only danger In Mississippi is the
danger that the friends of the initiative and referendum had to en
counter in Arkansas, namely, the failure to vote.
Your constitution
requires that the amendment shall receive not merely a majority of
the votes cast upon that subject but a majority of all votes cast at that
election, and experience shows that a great many people fail to vote on
amendments unless an active campaign is waged to bring the amend
ment clearly to the attention of the people.
I hope, therefore, that
those in favor of the initiative and referendum will see to it that
every voter Is reminded of the fact that the amendment is to be acted
upon, so that it will not be lost by failure of some of the voters to
express themselves on this particular subject.
“ I regard the initiative and referendum as the greatest modern im
provement in the strengthening of representative government.”
SENATOR
LA
F O L L E T T E URGES ADOPTION OF T H E
REFERENDUM IN W IS C O N S IN .
IN IT IA T IV E
AND
United States Senator I . a F oi . l e t t e , of Wisconsin, Is a distinguished
champion of popular government. In urging the adoption of the pend
ing amendment in his own State he s a y s ;
65122— 14187
5
“ For years the American people have been engaged in a terrific
struggle with the allied forces of organized wealth and political corrup
tion. Battles have been won and lost. The unequal contest goes on.
The lesson is obvious. The people must have in reserve new weapons
for every emergency if they are to regain and preserve control of their
Government.
“ The forces of special privilege are deeply intrenched.
Their re
sources are inexhaustible.
Their efforts never relax.
Their political
methods are insidious. It is impossible for the people to maintain per
fect organization in mass.
They are often taken unawares and are
liable to lose at one stroke the achievements of years of effort. In such,
a crisis nothing but the united power of the people expressed directly
through the ballot can overcome the enemy.
“ Through the initiative, referendum, and recall the people in any
emergency can absolutely control. The initiative and referendum make
it possible for them to demand a direct vote and repeal bad laws which
have been enacted, or to enact by direct vote good measures which their
representatives refuse to consider.
The recall enables the people to
dismiss from public service those representatives who dishonor their
commissions by betraying the public interest.
These measures will
prove so effective a check against unworthy representatives that it will
rarely be found necessary to invoke them.
“ If there is a State in this Nation in which the people are capable
of deciding questions for themselves, it is Wisconsin. W e should adopt
the initiative, referendum, and recall by an overwhelming vote on
November 3.”
How has direct legislation worked in the States where it has been
• tried ?
It has worked well.
Although reactionary politicians in these
States would be delighted to have the initiative and referendum abol
ished, they do not dare to start a movement for their repeal. They
know it would spell their political death, because the people believe
in the initiative and referendum and value it highly, especially after
they have used it a few years.
The experience of all these States
can be summed up in a recent statement by Mr. W illiam Spence, master
of the farmers State Grange of Oregon, in which he said :
“ The cow.non people of Oregon xcoutd not give up the referendum.
Ii has (lone loo much good. Ao one fights against it here hut the cor
porations and grafting politicians it has put out of a job.”
The corporation newspapers and lawyers are trying to convince the
people of other States that the initiative and referendum have failed
where tried.
W hat hurts them is that the people are using their
power for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the interests. The
Government is passing from the hands of the bosses into the hands of
the people. The bosses do not like it and that is the whole story in
a nutshell.
W as not this Nation founded upon the principle of “ representative
government,” and is not the initiative and referendum in conflict with
that principle?
Former Senator Joseph W . Bailey, of Texas, made this contention
the chief basis of an attack upon initiative and referendum at the
time he retired from the United States Senate, and it is being widely
used by reactionaries throughout the Nation.
Senator Bailey’s argu
ment was completely annihilated by Senator R obebt L. O w e n , of Okla
homa, in reply to Bailey. Here is a quotation :
“ This ltepublic was not founded on any so-called ‘representative
principle.’ The representative is merely a convenience, a servant, an
agency, subject of right to the direct control of the people.
“ This Republic was founded on the principle that the people were
sovereign and had a right, if they pleased, to manage their business
directly, a God-given right, vested in them, inalienable and indefeasible,
and directly to alter, amend, or abolish any law.
Every State con
stitution declares and exemplifies this fundamental principle.
Every
State constitution, except one, was established by the direct lawmaking
power of the people.
“ The option to use the initiative and referendum is not in conflict
with the present convenient system of legislating through representa
tives, but is in harmony with that system and makes it more repre
sentative, not less representative.”
L N o t e . — Senator O w e n ’ s complete speech entitled “ Peoples Rule v.
Boss R u le ” can be had upon application to the National Popular Gov
ernment League, Washington, L). C.]
05122— 14187
A
n sw er s to
O b je c t io n s .
The following are the most familiar objections made to the establish
ment of the initiative and referendum and answers by eminent public
men.
i. t h e p e o p l e a r e n o t i n t e l l i g e n t e n o u g h t o v o t e u p o n l a w s .
“ The alleged ignorance of the people has been urged in all ages
against progress in government.
It was the chief argument made
against the establishment of the American Republic.
Some ultraconservative people may honestly believe the people are incompetent,
but the objection is usually made by those who fear the intelligence, not
the ignorance, of the people.
“ The judgment of a whole State, expressed at the ballot box, after
full discussion and opportunity for information, which the State should
furnish, is about the safest guide in the affairs of government I know of.
“ Our whole system of government assumes the capacity of the peo
ple to judge the worth of legislative acts.
W e elect men upon the
measures they advocate or oppose. W e reelect them or not, as we think
the measures they have enacted good or bad.
Is it not absurd, then,
to hold that the people have brains enough to vote upon the men but
not intelligence enough to vote upon the measures themselves, printed
in black and w hite?
I confess it is a mystery to me how some men
can conceive the people to be ‘ intelligent citizens ’ just before election
and ‘ an irresponsible m o b ’ immediately after election.”
(lio n . G eorge
W . N o r r is , United States Senator from Nebraska.)
I I. W H A T IS T H E U SE 0 1 ' T H E L EG ISL AT U RE IF T H E PEO PLE ARE TO ENACT
LAW S?
V
“ The initiative and referendum do not abolish the legislature or the
need for one. They are called into action only in emergencies, when
the legislature fails to accomplish the will of the people, and usually
upon important questions.
Since the initiative and referendum were
established in Oregon over 98 per cent of the laws have been enacted
by the legislature.
In other States the percentage is higher than
this.”
(Hon. R o b e r t C r o s s e r , Congressman at large from Ohio and
author of the Ohio provision for the initiative and referendum.)
i n . T H E R E WOULD BE TOO M A N ! E L E C T IO N S , AND T H E COST WOULD B A N K
RU PT T H E ST AT E.
“ Men making this objection are either misinformed or w illfully m is
stating the truth.
All initiative and referendum provisions require
that questions submitted to the people through popular petition should
be voted upon at the regular general elections.
Special elections can
only be held on questions of immediate moment and magnitude, and
then only when especially ordered by the State legislature or by the
governor, as may be provided by law.
In 11 years the initiative and
referendum has cost the people of Oregon but a few cents apiece.”
(Hon. Moses E. Clapp, United States Senator from Minnesota.)
IV .
THERE
WOULD
BE TOO M A N Y Q U E ST IO N S ON T H E
PEO PLE WOULD BECOM E CO NFU SED .
B A L L O T,
AND
THE
“ In the last three elections, due largely to the failure of the legis
lature to carry out the will of the people, a relatively large number of
questions have been submitted in Oregon through the initiative and
referendum.
Political experts have been astonished at the ease and
intelligence with which the voters dispose of these questions. The citi
zens of Oregon are not worried, but there seems to be great alarm among
eastern newspaper editors lest the minds of our people be overstrained.
I fear that the fact that we are voting on vital issues, which certain
people would not like to see raised, is what troubles some. The people
of Oregon consider that they are as capable of deciding on 30 measures
with 4 months’ preparation and more as the legislature is on 824 meas
ures in 40 days.
(W illiam S. U ’ Ren, father of the “ Oregon svstem.” )
“ Up to 1912, 11 States have secured working State-wide initiative
and referendum amendments— 6 good ones, the others limited or de
fective.
From 1898, to and including 1912 election, there were voted
upon in those States a total of 176 initiative and referendum measures,
placed on the ballot by petition, as shown by the following ta b le :
651 2 2 — 14187
[From Bulletin No. 4, issued by the bureau of information of the Na
tional Popular Government League.
Compiled by Judson King, ex
ecutive secretary, W ashington, I). C.]
Number oi measures voted on in
election of—
Adopted.
1898..............
1902..............
1 905 .,..........
1906..............
1907..............
1908..............
1908..............
1910..............
1910..............
1911..............
1911..............
State.
Total.
1904
1906
1908
1910
2
11
4
15
1
6
27
4
31
1
7
5
4
South Dakota1..............
Oregon............................
Nevada2.........................
Montana.........................
Oklahoma.........................
2
11
21
2
3
45
1911
1912
14
86
1
5
12
3
5
1
1
7
26
9
6
5
7
26
9
6
1
96
176
1 N o n e from 1898 to 1908.
2 Had referendum only.
cluded.
V.
Amendments and laws submitted by legislature not in
TH E SYSTEM
IS TOO E X P E N S IV E .
“ The most expensive government in the world is that managed by a
privileged few. The loss democratic the more costly— witness Russia or
the frightful squandering of the public funds in 'States controlled by
political machines. The referendum is the greatest foe to extravagance
in public affairs known— witness the results in Oregon, South Dakota,
Montana, and other States. Since measures are ordinarily submiLed at
general elections the added cost is but slight. If the State adopts the
expensive and inefficient system of publishing pending measures in news
papers, this cost will be quite heavy, but if they adopt the Oregon,
Arizona, and California plan of sending a pamphlet to the voters the
expenses will be but a few thousand dollars for the entire State and
the education of the voters by this means is worth a thousand times
more than it cosis.”
(lio n . Carl Scliurz Vrooman, Assistant Secretary
of Agriculture.)
<
>
V I. IIO W W IL L T H E PEO PLE BE IN FO RM E D SO A S TO VOTE IN T E L L IG E N T L Y
ON PEN D IN G Q U E S T IO N S ? ' I!Y PU B L IC IT Y P A M P H L E T S ISSU E D BY T H E
ST A T E TO EAC H C IT IZ E N .
.
“ The problem of educating voters upon questions submitted under
the initiative and referendum has been solved in California by having
the secretary of state send to the voters through the mails a little pam
phlet containing copies' of the proposed laws, a reprint of the ballot
title, and also with explanatory arguments for and against each meas
ure. In Oregon the system also includes the right of citizens or organi
zation to present arguments, they paying the exact cost of the space
taken. These pamphlets are read and studied by an unexpectedly large
proportion of our citizens and who are thereby enabled to vote intelli
gently. I consider the pamphlet system of great importance, as it is far
better and cheaper than newspaper advertising.”
(Dr. John Randolph
Haynes, Los Angeles, father o f direct legislation in California.)
V II.
IF
WE
H A V E D IR E C T L E G IS L A T IO N , T lI E COLORED PEO PLE
E IG N ER S W IL L CONTROL ,'P llE GOVERN M EN T.
AND
FOR
“ During our campaign for the initiative and referendum in Arkansas
in 1910 every conceivable argument calculated to frighten the voters
into rejecting these people's rule measures was brought against us by
the reactionary few.
“ W e were told that ‘ legalized an archy’ would follow its adoption;
that there would a ‘ French RevolutionY; that we would ‘ lapse into
barbarism ’ ; and as a crowning absurdity we were warned that with the
initiative and referendum * the State would be controlled bv negroes.*
My answer to this tirade was, and is now, that this Is a white mart’ s
country and white men will continue to govern it, and that what the
65122— 14187
8
predatory corporations, their lawyers, and politicians feared was the
white people's intelligence and not the negros ignorance. Also that it
was foolish to talk about anarchy unless a majority of the people were
anarchists, since nothing could be done to which a majority of the
voters did not agree and that it was an insult to call the voters anarch
ists.''
(Mon. George W . Donaghey, former governor of Arkansas.)
The way to handle that portion of the “ foreign vote ” which can be
purchased, or any other class of purchasable voters, is' the cnaciment
of a stringent corrupt-practices act which will put in jail the men who
try to bribe them. As a matter of fact, election returns show that the
ignorant and careless voters of any class do not vote upon initiative and
referendum questions. It requires too much intelligence.
THE DANGER FROM “ JOKERS.”
To work successfully, initiative and referendum provisions must he
drawn with exceeding care.
The people of Oregon have accomplished
great results, because they have the best system produced to 1012
California and Arizona are also good. The chief “ jokers ” and so-eailed
“ safeguards and restrictions ” which destroy the efficiency of the
“ initiative and referendum ” are as follows :
First. To require a large number of signatures to petitions or put
hampering restrictions upon the people in securing them.
Second. To insert a clause which permits the legislature to deny the
people the right of a referendum on anything the legislature declares
to call an “ emergency.”
Third. To deny the right of referendum upon all appropriations.
Fourth. To deny the right of the people to initiate an amendment to
the State constitution.
Fifth. To require a majority of the votes cast for candidates “ in. ttie
election ” as necessary to enact measures instead of a majority of the
vote cast “ on the question.”
Sixth. To require pending measures to be advertised only in news
papers.
This is frightfully expensive and inadequate. The pamphlet
system is the only cheap and effective plan.
WHERE TO GET INFORMATION.
The National Popular Government League, a nonpartisan organiza
tion, maintains a bureau of information upon every phase of the initia
tive, referendum, recall, and other measures designed to place more
political power in the hands of the people.
Address Judson King, executive secretary, 1017 the Munsey Build
ing, Washington, D. C.
G o l2 2 — 1 4 1 8 7
o
“ IF THE PEOPLE REALLY RULE, WHY DON’T THE
PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY W ANT?”
The
The
The
The
Election of Senators by Direct Vote of the People
Need for the Direct Rule of the People
Laws Needed for the People’s Rule
Method by Which to Obtain the People’s Rule
SPEECH
OF
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF O K L A H O M A
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
W A SH IN G T O N
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
1912
31092-10612
S P E E C H
OF
HOX.
ROBERT
L.
OWEN.
The Senate having under consideration the election of Senators by direct vote of the
people—
.,j
Mr. OWEN said:
Mr. P r e sid e n t : On the 21st day of May, 1908, in accordance with the wishes
o f the Legislature o f the State o f Oklahoma, expressed by resolution o f January
9, 1908. I introduced Senate resolution No. 91, providing for the submission o f a
constitutional amendment for the election o f Senators by direct vote of the
people.
Article V of the Constitution provides that Congress, whenever two-thirds of
both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to the Consti
tution or. on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several
States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments which, in either case,
shall be valid when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several
States or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or other mode of
ratification may be proposed by Congress.
The reasons why the people wish this proposed reform are thoroughly well
understood.
First. It will make the Senate o f the United States more responsive to the
wishes of the people of the United States.
Second. It will prevent the corruption o f legislatures.
Third. It will prevent the improper use of money in the campaigns before the
electorate by men ambitious to obtain a seat in the Senate of the United States.
Fourth. It will prevent the disturbance and turmoil of State legislatures and
the interferences with State legislation by the violent contests of candidates for
a position in the United States Senate.
Fifth. It will compel candidates for the United States Senate to be subjected
to the severe scrutiny of a campaign before the people and compel the selection
o f the best-fitted men.
Sixth. It will prevent deadlocks, due to political contests in which various
States from time to time have been thus left unrepresented.
Seventh. It will popularize government and tend to increase the confidence
o f the people o f the United States in the Senate o f the United States, which has
been to some extent impaired in recent years.
Mr. President, as the State o f Idaho poiifts out, and as the State o f New Jersey
points out, in their resolutions herewith submitted the House of Representatives
of the Congress of the United States has on four separate occasions passed by
a two-thirds vote a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution
providing for the election o f United States Senators by direct vote o f the people.
And the Senate has, on each occasion, failed or refused to vote upon such
resolution or to submit such constitutional amendment to the several States
for their action, as contemplated by the Constitution o f the United States.
On July 21, 1894, the House of Representatives, by v o f? of 141 to 50 (C o n
g r e s sio n a l R ecord , vol. 26, p. 7783), and on May 11, 1898, by vote o f 185 to 11
(C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord , vol. 31, p. 4825), and on April 13, 1900, by vote o f 242
to 15 (C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord, vol. 33, p. 4128), and on February 13, 1902, by a
viva voce vote, nem. con. (C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord, vol. 35, p. 1722), has recorded
the wishes o f every congressional district o f the United States, with negligible
exceptions, in favor of this reform.
The Speaker of the Fifty-fifth Congress said, and Mr. Corliss. February 19,
1902, repeated the sentiment, “ that this was a measure demanded by the Ameri
can people, and that the Members o f this House, representing directly the people,
should pass this measure, and continue to pass it, and knock upon the doors of
the Senate until it listens to the voice of the people.” (C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord,
vol. 35, p. 1721.)
31092— 10612
(2)
3
Is a unanimous vote o f tlie House of Representatives an index to the wishes
o f the American people or is the will of the people of sufficient importance to
persuade the Senate to act and comply with their repeatedly expressed wishes?
On May 23, 1908, I called attention of the Senate to the various resolutions
passed by 27 States of the Union praying Congress and the Senate for this
reform, and on behalf o f my own State o f Oklahoma I urged the Senate to act.
Over my protest the Senate referred this joint resolution 91 to the Committee
on Privileges and Elections by the following vote:
The result was announced— yeas 33, nays 20, as fo llo w s:
Aldrich
Allison
Bacon
Bankhead
Brandegee
Briggs
Burnham
Burrows
Carter
Clark, W yo.
Crane
Cullom
Depew
Dick
Dillingham
Foraker
Gallinger
Guggenheim
Dixon
Gore
Johnston
La Follette
McCreary
Clapp
Ankeny
Beveridge
Borah
Brown
T E A S — 33.
Hale
Hey burn
Hopkins
Kean
Knox
Lodge
Long
Nelson
Penrose
Richardson
Smith, Md.
Stewart
Warner
W arren
Wetmore
N A Y S — 20.
Newlands
Owen
Overman
Paynter
Perkins
Piles
Simmons
Smith, Mich.
Stephenson
Teller
N O T V O T IN G — 39.
Dolliver
Hansbrough
Bailey
du Pont
Bourne
Hemenway
Bulkeley
Elkins
Kittredge
Flint
Burkett
McCumber
Foster
Clarke, Ark.
McEnery
Frazier
Clay
McLaurln
Culberson
Frye
Martin
Fulton
Curtis
Milton
Daniel
Gamble
Money
Davis
Gary
Nixon
(Page 7115 C o n g r e ssio n a l R ecord, M ay 23, 1908.)
Platt
Rayner
Scott
Smoot
Stone
Sutherland
Taliaferro
Taylor
Tillm an
This vote meant the defeat of the proposed constitutional amendment.
The Senator from Michigan [Mr. B u r r o w s ], chairman of the Committee on
Privileges and Elections, never gave any hearing on this resolution and never
reported it, but allowed the Sixtieth Congress to expire without taking any ac
tion in regard to it, notwithstanding the Legislature of the State o f Michigan
had theretofore by joint resolution expressly favored the submission o f an
amendment for the election o f Senators by direct vote.
On July 7, 1909, I introduced the same resolution again in the present Con
gress as Senate Joint Resolution No. 41.
I tru st I m ay not be regarded as inconsiderate, too h asty, or too
urgent, if a fte r w aiting over two years fo r a report by the Senator from
M ichigan, I now call upon him to perform his duty to the people and re
spond to th eir repeatedly expressed wishes in this m atter, or else th at he
fra n k ly re fu se to do so.
Mr. President, the present Committee on Privileges and Elections of the
Senate is composed of the following Members, 8 Republicans and 5 Democrats:
J ulius C. B urrows of Michigan, Chauncby M. Dbpew of New York, A lbert J. B ev
eridge of Indiana, W illiam P. D illingham of Vermont, J onathan P. Dollivbr of Iowa,
R obert J. Gamble of South Dakota, W eldon B. H eyburn of Idaho, M organ G. B ulkbley
o f Connecticut, Joseph W. B ailey of Texas, James B. F razier of Tennessee, T homas H.
Payntbr of Kentucky, Joseph F. J ohnston of Alabama, D uncan U. F letcher of Florida.
Ten o f these 13 States favor the choice o f Senators by the vote o f the people,
but I fear the Senators from Vermont, New York, and Connecticut, whose
States are not officially committed, may unduly influence the committee, para
lyze its activities, and prevent a favorable answer to the petition or wishes of
the 37 other States.
Eight Republican Senators, as a practical matter, control the policy o f this
committee, and 4 o f these can prevent action under the present very enlightened
system o f organized party management o f the majority party, which is under an
influence that is almost occult, and a management that seems excellently well
devised to control all committee action by a majority o f a majority plan that
enables 4 to defeat 13 on the Committee on Privileges and Elections. This is
an example of what is called “ machine politics.”
*
*
31092— 10612
*
*
*
*
*
4
The fuller details relative to primary elections will be found in the work
Primary Elections, a Study o f the History and Tendencies of Primary Election
Legislation, by C. Edward Merriam, associate professor o f political science in
the University of Chicago, 1908.
Only nine States— New England, New York, Delaware, and West Virginia—
have failed to definitely act in favor o f the election or selection o f Senators by
direct vote o f the people, and even in these States the tendency o f the people
is strongly manifested toward such selection of Senators.
In West Virginia they have primaries in almost all o f the counties, instructing
members o f the legislature as to the election o f Senators.
In Delaware the election o f the members of the legislature carries with it an
understanding as to the vote o f the member on the Senatorship.
In Massachusetts the legislature, through the house of representatives, has
just passed a resolution favorable to this constitutional amendment and is now
considering the initiative and referendum.
Maine has recently adopted the initiative and referendum— the people’s rule.
It is obvious that in Maine the question o f who shall be Senator is entering
vigorously into the question o f the election o f members of the legislature, and
commitments are demanded of candidates for the legislature; and so in greater
or less degree even in some other Northeastern States, which are not definitely
committed to the election o f Senators by direct vote o f the people, a similar
method is followed, which, in effect, operates as an instruction, more or less
pronounced, in favor o f a candidate for the Senate.
In the five remaining States, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Con
necticut, and Rhode Island, a majority of the people unquestionably favor the
election o f Senators by direct vote o f the people, which is demonstrated by the
approval of the Democrats of these States o f this policy and in addition by the
various nonpartisan organizations, the National Grange, American Federation
o f Labor, and so forth, and by the attitude o f many individual Republicans, who
are not sufficiently strong, however, to control the party management.
In the effort I made to have the amendment to the Constitution submitted to
the various States on May 23, 1908 (S. J. Res. 91), it was obvious that I had
not the sympathy o f those who control the Senate and no vote from a North
eastern State.
I had, in fact, the active opposition o f the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
A l d r i c h ], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. L odge ], the Senator from New
Jersey [Mr. K e a n ], the Senator from Maine [Mr. H a l e ], the Senator from Penn
sylvania [Mr. P e n r o se ], the Senator from New York [Mr. D e p e w ] — the leaders
o f the Republican Party in the Senate. The Senator from Massachusetts and
the Senator from Rhode Island and the Senator from New Jersey actually tried
to prevent my obtaining a vote, resorting to the small parliamentary device of
asserting or suggesting that I was asking unanimous consent for a vote after
I had moved the Senate to take the vote. If I had acceded to this untrue
assertion consent would have been denied and a vote thus prevented. What does
this fear o f a record mean?
•
I do not in the least complain o f such parliamentary tactics, nor o f the oppo
sition. I merely think it my duty to call the attention o f the country to it,
that it may not be doubted that the Republican leaders o f the Senate are opposed
to giving the people o f the United States the power to choose their own Senators.
The right o f the people to elect Senators ought not to be denied, and the party
leaders who are unwilling to trust the people to elect Members o f the Senate
ought not to be trusted with power, because the Senate can block and actually
does block every reform the people desire.
The Senate has frequently been used to obstruct the will of the people, and
especially the will o f the people to elect Senators by direct vote.
I had then and I will have to-day the efficient opposition o f the Republican
managers o f the Senate, who do not listen to the voice o f the people, even if
they believe in it. The Senator from Rhode Island, for example, the acknowl
edged leader, has an environment that unfits him to believe in the wisdom o f
popular government, because in Rhode Island, under an unwise and archaic
mechanism the government o f the State is said to be controlled by about 11 per
cent o f Its voters and what might fairly be called a party machine, which is
under the powerful domination o f commercial interests. I do not say this in any
sense as a reproof, because I believe each State must determine its own manage
ment, but as an historical observation, which I think is accurately made, and as
showing the important need o f improvement in our system o f government.
31092— 10612
5
■ The Senator from Rhode Island, in answer to my presentation of the resolu
tions passed by the various 27 States, asked the following illuminating question
of m e:
Mr. A l d r i c h . Does the Senator from Oklahoma understand that a Senator is bound to
vote according to the instructions of his legislature?
While I answered in the negative, as a mere legal proposition,-nevertheless
I do think that when the opinion of the people of a State is thoroughly well
made up a Senator ought not only to be bound by it, but that he ought to feel
glad to carry into effect the will of the people whom he represents, and ought
not to set up for himself a knowledge or an understanding greater than that
of the people o f the entire State who have sent him as their representative.
I believe that the will of the people is far more nearly right, in the main,
than the will of any individual statesman who is apt to be honored by them
with a transitory seat in the Senate; that the whole people are more apt to be
safe and sane, more apt to be sound and honest than a single individual. At
all events, I feel not only willing, but I really desire to make effective the will
of the people of my State. I believe in popular government, and I believe that
the* people are more conservative, more “ safe and sane,” and more nearly apt
to do right in the long run than ambitious statesmen temporarily trusted with
power.
I will submit, Mr. President, the direct evidence and record o f the public
opinion o f the people of the United States as expressed through their legisla
tures, or by the voluntary act of party regulations in instructing candidates for
the legislature on the question of the election of United States Senators, or by
primary laws as far as they apply.
It will be thus seen that Democratic States and Republican States alike,
west of the Hudson River, have acted favorably in this matter practically
without exception. Only eight or nine States have failed to act, and I do
not doubt , that if the voice of the people o f these States o f New England, of
New York, Maryland, and Delaware could find convenient expression, free from
machine politics, every one o f them would favor the election of Senators by
direct vote, and would favor the right o f the people to instruct their Repre
sentatives in Congress and in the Senate, a right which they enjoyed from the
beginning o f the American Republic down to the days when this right was
smothered and destroyed by the convention system o f party management.
Not only the States have acted almost unanimously in favor of this right of
the people, but all the great parties of the country have declared in favor of
it, except the Republican Party, and this party would have declared for it
except for the overwhelming influence and domination o f machine politics in the
management o f that party and the prevalence of so-called boss influence. And
this is demonstrated by the fact that the large majority o f the Republican
States, by the resolutions or acts of their legislatures, have declared in favor
of it, and that several times the House o f Representatives, when Republican,
by a two-thirds vote, passed a resolution to submit such a constitutional
amendment.
The trouble is the machine has gotten control o f the Republican management
o f the Senate and can thus block every reform the people want. The insur
gents insurge in vain.
If I remember correctly, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. La F ollette ], at
the last national Republican convention, raised this issue on the floor of the
convention, and the proposal to put in the Republican platform the election of
Senators by direct vote of the people was defeated by the powerful influence
of a political machine, which, on that occasion, manifested itself in the delegates
there present— a machine so obviously a machine as to excite the term o f
derision, “ the steam roller.” The “ steam roller ” is not an emblem o f repre
sentative free government o f a free people.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mr. President, I have great personal respect for very many of the representa
tives o f the great party the control o f which by machine methods I am assailing
on the floor of this body, and do not wish to appear to say anything that would
imply the contrary. I am assailing a bad system of government, which leads
to evil, and not assailing individuals, or desiring to do so.
I do not approve machine methods in the Senate, in the House, or in the
management o f parties, because it leads to absolute bad government and gives
peculiar opportunity.
31092— 10612
6
The Democratic Party, representing about half o f the voters o f the United
States (6,409,104 voters), in its national platform adopted at Denver, Colo.,
July 10, 1908, says:
We favor the election of .United States Senators by direct vote of the people, and regard
this reform as the gateway to other national reforms.
In like manner the Democratic national platform in 1900 had declared for—
Election of United States Senators by the direct v ote o f the people, and we fa vor direct
legislation w herever practicable.
And in 1904 repeated the doctrine:
W e favor the election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people.
-
The platform o f the Independence Party, adopted at Chicago, 111., July 28,
1908, declared for direct nominations generally, and further made the following
declaration:
W e advocate the popular election of United States Senators and of judges, both State
and Federal,
*
*
*
and any constitutional amendment necessary to these ends.
The platform o f the Prohibition Party, adopted at Columbus, Ohio, July*18,
1908. made the following its chief plank after the prohibition question, to w it:
The election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people.
The platform of the New York Democratic League, adopted at Saratoga, N. Y.,
September 10, 1909, declares for the—
Election of United States Senators by the direct vote of the people.
The platform o f the People's Party at Sioux Falls (1900) contained the fol
lowing declaration:
W e demand that United States Senators be elected by direct vote of the people.
The American Federation of Labor, consisting of 118 national and interna
tional unions, representing, approximately, 27,000 local unions, 4 departments,
38 branches, 594 city central unions, and 573 local unions, with an approximately
paid membership o f 2,000,000 men, representing between eight and ten millions
o f Americans, with 245 papers, have declared repeatedly in favor o f the election
o f Senators by direct vote of the people.
The National Orange, comprising the Association of Farmers in the Northeast
and in Central States, including nearly every farmer in Maine and in the New
England States, and in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Michigan, the Society of
Equity and the Fanners' Educational and Cooperative Union o f the West and
South, and all together representing the organized farmers o f the entire United
States, have declared in favor o f the election of Senators by direct vote o f the
people. In this group o f people our census o f 1900 disclosed 10,438,218 adult
workers and probably 45,000,000 people.
The State o f Iowa in a joint resolution o f April 12, 1909, makes the follow
ing statement:
#
W hereas the failure of Congress to submit such amendment to the States has made it
clear that the only practicable method of securing submission of such an amendment to
the States is through a constitutional convention to be called by Congress upon the
application of the legislatures of two-thirds of all the States—
And the Legislature of Iowa therefore resolved in favor o f a constitutional
convention, in effect, because o f the neglect and refusal o f the Senate o f the
United States to perform its obvious duty in the premises, the lower House hav
ing, by a two-thirds vote on four previous occasions, passed a resolution provid
ing for the submission o f such a constitutional amendment.
In the speech of the Hon. William H. Taft accepting the Republican nomina
tion for the office o f President o f the United States at Cincinnati, Ohio, on
July 28, 1908, he sa id :
W ith respect to the election of Senators by the people, personally I am inclined to
favor it, but it is hardly a party question. A resolution in its favor has passed a Repub
lican House of Representatives several times, and has been rejected in a Republican
Senate by the votes of Senators from both parties.
It has been approved by the legis
latures of many Republican States. In a number of States, both Democratic and Repub
lican, substantially such a system now prevails.
The President justly says it is hardly a party question, and that personally
he is inclined to favor it; that a resolution in its favor has passed a Repub
lican House of Representatives several times, but has been rejected in a Re
publican Senate by votes o f Senators from both parties; that it has been ap-
3 1 0 9 2 — 1 0 612
7
proved by the legislatures o f many Republican States; nevertheless, it is per
fectly obvious to the country that any action by the Senate in favor o f
complying with the will of the people of the United States in this connection
will be rejected. I naturally ask, under the circumstances, since the Demo
cratic Party is fully committed to it, since many Republican States favor it,
since a Republican House of Representatives has passed a resolution in its
favor several times, since a Republican President is inclined to favor it, Why
can the people get no actiont I naturally ask under the circumstances, Do the
people rule, or are they ruled by machine rule unduly influenced by commercial
interests?
Mr. President, I now submit the resolutions or abstract of laws o f 37 States,
over three-fourths o f the States o f the Union, which have shown themselves as
favoring election of Senators by direct vote o f the people or by direct nomi
nations, either by these resolutions or by actual practice in primaries.
I know that the leaders o f the Republican Party in the United States Senate
will refuse to comply with the express desire o f over three-fourths o f the
States in this matter, but they ought not to be understood by the people o f the
United States to have done this in ignorance, and for that reason I propose to
insert in the R ecord the attitude of the 37 States that favor the election of
Senators by direct vote o f the people, and merely ask the simple question:
“ Do the people rule?”
As it would take considerable time to read all these resolutions, I ask the
consent o f the Senate to insert them without reading except in so far as they
may be needed.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. Without objection, the request is granted.
The matter referred to is as follows (see C o n g r e s s io n a l R ecord o f May 31,
1910) :
Here find resolutions, laws, etc., o f 37 States.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
In spite of 37 States demanding or adopting the indirect method of selecting
Senators by vote o f the people, in spite of all the evidence submitted to show
universality o f opinion, the will of the American people is refused the courtesy
of a hearing.
Mr. President, I ask you, I ask the Senate, I ask the people o f the United
States, Do the people really rulet
The refusal of the Senate o f the United States to perform its obvious duty
in this matter o f the submission of a constitutional amendment for the election
of Senators by direct vote, while very important as the g a t e w a y to other
n e e d e d r e f o r m s , is, however, merely characteristic of the Senate under the
control o f a party management that is ruled by a machine method unduly in
fluenced by commercial allies and the so-called big interests. I shall presently
show that the people can get none o f the reforms they want while this un
fortunate condition remains.
Mr. President, the unwearied and unconquerable Democracy in the opening
declarations o f its last national platform laid down the great issue that must
next be settled in this country and said:
W e rejoice at the Increasing signs of an awakening throughout the country.
The
various investigations have traced graft and political corruption to the representatives of
predatory wealth and laid bare the unscrupulous methods by which they have debauched
elections and preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient officials whom
they have raised to place and power.
,r The conscience o f the Nation is now aroused to free the Governm ent from the grip of
those who have made it a business asset o f the favor-seeking corporations; it must become
again o people’s governm ent and be administered in all its departments according to the
Jeffersonian maxim, Equal rights to all and special privileges to none.”
Shall the people rule ? is th e overshadowing issue w h ic h
all the questions now under d iscussion .
manifests itself in
the greatest of all issu es .
Mr. President, the greatest o f all issues, not only in the United States but
throughout the civilized world! is the issue o f popular government, or the gov
ernment of the people against delegated government, or government by conven
tion, or government by machine politics.
The vital question is, Shall the people rule? Shall they control the mechanism
o f party government? Shall they have the direct power to nominate, to in
struct, to recall their public servants; to legislate directly and to enact laws
they want and to veto laws they do not want, free from corruption, intimidation,
or force, as well as elect Senators who claim to represent them on this floor?
31092— 10612
The Senator from Oregon well says (May 5, 1910) :
“ ABSOLUTE GOVERNMENT BY THE PEOPLE.
“ Under the machine and political-boss system the confidence o f sincere par
tisans is often betrayed by recreant leaders in political contests and by public
servants who recognize the irresponsible machine instead o f the electorate as
the source o f power to which they are responsible. I f the enforcement of the
Oregon laws will right these wrongs, then they were conceived in wisdom and
born in justice to the people, in justice to the public servant, and in justice to
the partisan.
“ Plainly stated, the aim and purpose o f the laws are to destroy the irre
sponsible political machine and to put all elective offices in the State m direct
touch with the people as the real source o f authority; in short, to give direct
and full force to the ballot o f every individual elector in Oregon and to elimi
nate dominance of corporate and corrupt influences in the administration of
public affairs. The Oregon laws mark the course that must be pursued before
the wrongful use o f corporate power can be dethroned, the people restored to
power, and lasting reform secured. They insure absolute government by the
people.”
THE
SECRET ALLIANCE BETWEEN
MACHINE POLITICS AND SPECIAL INTERESTS.
Mr. President, the great evil from which the American people have suffered
in recent years has been the secret but well-known alliance between commer
cial interests and machine politics, by which special interests have endeavored
and often succeeded in obtaining legislation giving them special advantages in
Nation, State, and in municipalities over the body o f the American people and
obtained administrative and judicial immunity so that the laws have not been
properly enforced against them ; by which means they have enriched themselves
at the expense o f the American people; at the expense of Democrats and
Republicans alike; by which private individuals have become enormously and
foolishly rich, and many millions o f people intellectually, physically, financially,
or morally weak have been reduced to poverty and to a condition o f relative
financial, industrial, and moral degradation.
Mr. President, the mad scramble for unneeded millions, the unrestrained lust
for money and power has become a national and a wo rid-wide scandal. How
unwise it seems, Mr. President, when a man already has more than enough to
gratify every want, every taste, every luxury, every wish that is within the
bounds o f reason or o f common sense that he should still pursue a mad race
for sordid wealth, using his great opportunities for good, not for the welfare of
his poorer and weaker brothers, but to press them to hard labor through the
artificial mechanism o f corporate taskmasters like galley slaves sent to twelve
hours o f labor seven days a week, to degeneracy and ruin, as has been reported
to this Senate through the protected iron and steel industries o f Pittsburgh
(Pittsburgh Survey) and at Bethlehem (Report of Secretary o f Commerce
and Labor).
What an evil inflence over our national life is being exercised by the false
social standards o f lavish extravagance and wasteful ostentation, standards set
by the thoughtless rich and imitated in graduated degrees by their satellites and
admirers down through society to those who can not afford extravagance with
out injury or ruin. Our whole society is being injuriously affected by these
false standards o f “ high living.” People have automobiles who have no
homesteads.
Mr. President, I regard it as o f great importance that the country should
understand the manner in which commercial interests are using the powers of
government through the mechanism of machine politics.
Many men without the slightest intention o f departing from the line of the
strictest rectitude nevertheless engage in the political game and use machine
politics for their own preferment, recognizing no better method and thinking
it to be a fact that purity in politics is an iridescent dream, and content that
they are themselves guilty o f no criminal or gross immoral act. My comments
on these matters are intended to have no application whatever to any individual
in the sense o f imputing to him a bad or depraved motive. It is the system
which I attack.
All men where severely tempted are liable to err, and I believe our Govern
ment should be so changed as to protect the individual from temptation o f any
kind as we would protect a friend from exposure to disease.
31092— 10612
9
Mr. President, I have no desire to seek partisan advantage by pointing out the
weaknesses of government under present methods o f party management. I
should like to see the complete restoration o f good government in the United
States. It will require the most vigorous efforts o f the honest men o f both par
ties to restore the Government to a condition o f integrity, where high purposes,
honor, and the common good shall exclusively rule.
*
*
*
*
THE BIPARTISAN
*
*
*
ASPECT.
Mr. President, I shall not offend the columns o f the Cong ees s io n a l R ecobd
with the multitudes of instances of corruption in municipality, city, or Federal
Government with which the public press has been constantly filled. The cor
ruption shown in St. Louis by Mr. Folk; in San Francisco by Heney; in Chi
cago ; in Pittsburgh, where more than 40 members o f the city council were in
dicted for g ra ft; in Albany, N. Y .; in Harrisburg, P a .; in New Y ork ; in B oston;
in Philadelphia— the wide prevalence of corruption in government in our great
Republic is a deep national disgrace. The number o f egregious instances is
both shocking and amazing. This nation-wide evil is, however, directly due to
the weakness o f human nature and the defective mechanism o f party govern
ment which has unavoidably developed under a system o f machine politics, with
its corrupt and corrupting methods, which subjects men to temptations that too
often prove irresistible. The evil, under such a bad system, would arise under
any party in power, and can be absolutely eliminated and eradicated by the laws
I propose.
A distinguished statesman once said that the idea o f purity in politics was
in iridescent dream.
The people retired him, and thereafter he described himself as “ a statesman
out o f a job.”
He neglected his opportunity to find a remedy and point it out. Yet he was
a well-meaning man, an orator and a scholar o f great ability; but he saw no
way out.
PURITY IN POLITICS.
It is not true, Mr. President, that purity in politics is an iridescent dream.
It can be made a reality through the Oregon system o f popular government and
by the overthrow" o f the imperfect mechanism o f party government which has
evolved the bad system o f machine-rule government The remedy for the evils
from which our national, State, and municipal governments have suffered is to
restore the rule o f the people—to restore the full powers o f government to the
people by the Oregon system; to pass law’s by which the people can directly
nominate, directly initiate laws they do want, directly veto laws they do not
want, directly recall public servants, by which the people can set aside political
mercenaries who often seize upon the reins o f party control under color of
party enthusiasm with the cold-blooded, criminal purpose o f selling government
favor o f profit or power. I pray the leaders o f all parties to promote the rule
o f the people by the Oregon system.
The people have no sinister purposes. The people will not sell ou t
The people are “ safe and sa n e”
The people are conservative and sound.
The people are honest and intelligent.
The people would vote fo r the public interest alone and would not vote for
purely selfish private interests.
The people would not grant 99-year or perpetual corporate franchises or legis
lative privileges o f enormous value without adequate consideration.
The people would not deprive any persons o f their just rights.
Under the rule o f the people the issue o f world-wide peace would be raised
and would, by popular vote o f all nations, be made a permanent international
law.
The people know more than their Representatives do, and are less passionate
and less liable to be led into either internal or international complications.
The people are worthier to be confided in than any individuals trusted with
temporary power.
The people would be economical in government.
Under the rule o f the people, with the right o f recall, their public servants
would be more upright, more faithful, more diligent, more economical, and more
honest; the public service would be purified; the bad example o f corruption and
31092— 10612
extravagance in high places would be removed and new and better standards o f
public and private conduct would prevail.
The servants o f the people would then concern themselves more in bringing
about the reforms which the people desire.
IP THE PEOPLE REALLY RULE, W HY DON'T THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY
WANT?
Mr. President, “ popular distrust o f our legislative bodies is undermining the
confidence of the people in representative government,” It is promoting radical
socialism and developing elements o f criminal anarchy.
It is developing forces that have in past history overthrown Governments and
destroyed the existing order.
The people desire many things which they are entitled to receive, which have
been promised to them, and which have been withheld or at least not delivered
by their public servants, who in reality make themselves the masters o f the
people when trusted with power.
The people want lower prices on the necessaries o f life and the reduction of
the tariff. Why do they not get it? They were promised reduction, but they
got a higher tariff and higher prices than before.
Why do they not get reciprocity f It has been repeatedly promised in party
platforms and on the hustings.
Reciprocity was the policy repeatedly declared by Blaine and McKinley, and
it was again proclaimed in the Republican national platform of 1900, upon
which McKinley and Roosevelt were elected, confirming the policy upon which
the people had previously trusted the Republican Party with power.
But the Republican organization in the Senate on March 5, 1903, finally
defeated every reciprocity treaty negotiated under the authority of the “ Act
to provide revenue for the Government, and to encourage the industries o f the
United States,” approved July 24, 1897, to w it: The convention with France,
submitted December 6, 1899, agreement extending time to ra tify : submitted
March 21, 1900; again March 9, 1901; December 4, 1902, and so forth. Recom
mitted March 5, 1903. In like manner were smothered and killed the following
reciprocity treaties:
The convention with Great Britain, March 5, 1903; the convention for Bar
bados, March 5, 1903; the convention for British Guiana, March 5, 1903; the
convention for Turks and Caicos Islands, March 5, 1903; the convention for
Jamaica, March 5, 1903; the convention for Bermuda, March 5, 1903; the con
vention for Newfoundland, March 5, 1903; the convention with Argentine
Republic, March 5, 1903; the convention with Ecuador, March 5, 1903; the con
vention with Nicaragua, March 5, 1903; the convention with Denmark for S t
Croix, March 5, 1903; and so forth, and so forth.
The people leant lower prices and the reduction o f the tariff. Why don’t
they get it? They were promised reduction, but they got a higher tariff and
higher prices than before, and shameful “ retaliation ” instead of honorable
“ reciprocity? ”
The people want the control of monopoly and the reduction o f the high prices
of monopoly. Why don’t they get it? All parties promise it, yet Moody’s
Manual shows that the gigantic monopolies have rapidly grown until their
stocks and bonds comprise a third o f the national wealth. They aggregate
over thirty thousand millions o f dollars. Moody’s Manual for 1907, page 2330,
gives over 1,000 companies absorbed or merged by or into other companies for
1907, and these conditions grow worse each year.
Organized monopoly controls the meat market; controls the selling price of
beef, mutton, pork, fowls, and every variety o f meat.
Organized monopoly controls the prices of all bakery products and candies
and preserves; controls the prices o f all canned goods and tropical fru its; con
trols the price o f sugar and salt and spices. Monopolies control everything that
goes on the table, as food, as tableware, china and glass ware, and the price
o f the table itself; controls the price o f everything that enters the house, the
furniture, the carpets, the draperies; controls the price o f everything worn
upon the back o f man, o f woolen goods, of linen goods, of silk goods, o f cotton
goods, of leather gooda
They control the price of all materials o f which buildings
are constructed— lumber, iron and steel, cement, brick, plaster, marble, granite,
stone, tile, slate, and asphalt They control paper and stationery gooda iron,
copper, and steel and metala and goods made o f these materials. They con
trol dairy products; they control railways and steamship lines, telegraph,
telephone, and expreas companiea They control everything needed by man,
31092— 10612
11
from the cradle which receives the baby, and the toys with which a child plays,
to the casket and the cerements of the grave.
They have raised prices 50 per cent higher than the markets o f the world,
and their apologists, the political allies of commercial monopoly and their
intellectual mercenaries, fill the public press with solemn argument about the
quantitative theory o f money and the increase o f gold as explaining and justify
ing high prices.
The whole world is staggering under the high prices o f monopoly, and the
people of the United States are afflicted with prices 50 per cent higher than
those paid by the balance o f mankind. The people ask for bread and they get
a stone. They ask for lower prices and they get a senatorial investigation as
to the causes o f high prices, and the causes of high prices when ascertained by
this unnecessary and absurd research will unquestionably be used as a special
plea and as an apology and pretext for denying the reasonable demand of the
American people for the restraint of monopoly and the lowering of prices.
These high prices mean that it takes $150 to buy what $100 bought before
and ought to buy. It is very hard on domestic servants, all of whom are ask
ing higher wages. It is very hard on people with fixed salaries or o f small
fixed incomes and annuities and with pensions. These artificial high prices
make the few, the monopolists, very rich, but they sorely, painfully tax the
living o f the poor.
This policy is justified neither by common sense nor by patriotism.
The people demand a fair price fo r their crude products, for their cattle and
hogs and sheep and the corn and hay and grass fed into these domestic animals
and marketed. The Beef Trust artificially fixes the price o f what they produce,
without competition, at an unfair price, and no remedy is afforded. The
Tobacco Trust fixes the price o f their tobacco, and is stirring up the night
riders’ rebellion, with its ignorant, criminal, and pitiful protests, by stealing
the value of the labor o f the tobacco raiser by artificial prices, and no relief is
given.
The thief uses the sword of the State to punish the protest o f its victim who
in blind passion violates the law o f the Government that does not protect him.
It is a sorrowful sight.
Gamblers in the market places undertake to force prices o f wheat, com , oats,
and cotton back and forth for gambling purposes, and no relief.
Is it any wonder the people abandon the farm and find a worse condition in
the grinding competition o f labor in our great cities, where monopoly again fixes
the price o f labor? Is it any wonder labor makes violent efforts to protect itself
and to protect the wives and children who look to them for protection?
I F T H E PE O PL E B U L E , W H Y DO T H E Y N O T GET W H A T T H E Y
W ANT?
The people have been promised the control of monopoly. Why do they not
get it? Are the people in control o f Government, or are the trusts in control?
Do the people really rule?
The people do not approve blacklisting o f employees by the tariff-protected
monopolies, yet they get no relief.
The people do not approve the grinding down of ivages by the protected
monopolies, from which brutal policy poverty, crime, inefficiency, sickness, and
death must unavoidably follow.
W H Y DO T H E Y
GET N O B E L I E F f
The people desire an employers' liability act— eight hours o f labor and one
day o f rest in seven and sanitary housing for labor. Why do they not get it?
Is the demand unreasonable? Has not the condition at Pittsburgh, the center
o f the great system o f American protection, been fully set forth by the highest
authority, by the trained experts of the Russell Sage Foundation?
Did they not point out 12 hours of labor 7 days in the week as the usual rule,
impure water, impure food, insanitary housing, sick women and children? Does
not the recent report o f the Department o f Commerce and Labor o f the Bethle
hem Co. confirm it? Why is there no relief from these hideous conditions of
American life?
The people do not approve 12 hours o f labor for 7 days in the week that makes
o f man a pitiful beast o f burden and destroys his efficiency and life. The Sage
Foundation pointed out these tragical conditions at Pittsburgh, as I have here
tofore pointed out to the Senate; the Department o f Commerce and Labor has
31092— 10612
12
reported to the Senate a like condition at the Bethlehem Steel Works, in answer
to a resolution o f the Senate offered by me.
Why is there no relief or attempt at relief?
The part which the United States Steel Corporation has played in promoting
political campaigns is an open secret and furnishes one of the obvious reasons
why relief is not afforded.
The people would like publicity o f campaign contributions, and a thorough
going corrupt-practices act. Why do they not get it?
Who is interested in maintaining the corrupt practices? Do not the people
desire corrupt practices stopped?
Who opposes publicity o f campaign contributions? Do not the people wish
publicity o f campaign contributions and effective control o f the use o f money in
campaigns?
The people desire to control gambling in agricultural products. Who is con
cerned in maintaining this evil system of gambling in wheat and corn and oats
and rye and cotton ? Do the people desire this gambling to continue, and would
It continue under the rule o f the people?
The people despise the legislative treachery o f the so-called “ joker ” in their
laws which defeats the implied promise o f relief in the law. When the people
rule, this legislative trickery will cease.
Oh, it is said, Mr. President, that the people do not know what they want
nor how to govern themselves directly, but only by representatives.
I emphatically deny it. The demonstration in Oregon is a final answer to
such shallow pretenses. I confess for the most part they are an unorganized
mob in politics; that for many years they have trusted political parties, man
aged by machine methods; that they do not select candidates or issues; but
Oregon and Oklahoma point a new and safe way to correct this deficiency.
The people wish the gambling in stocks and bonds to be terminated. Why
does the Senate not act? Why does not the Congress act and forbid the mails
to the most gigantic and wicked gambling scheme the world has ever known—
a gigantic sponge which absorbs by stealth and craft hundreds of millions
annually from foolish trusting citizens, misled by false appeals to their avarice,
cupidity, and speculative weaknesses, derisively called “ the lambs,” who pass
in an unbroken stream to slaughter on the fascinating altars o f mammon.
Why are the reserves of the national banks not used exclusively fo r com
merce, but used instead as an agency o f stock gambling and overcertiflcation
o f checks as a chief auxiliary? I tried my best in the Senate when the financial
bill was pending in 190S to amend this evil condition, but the Senate will remem
ber the denial o f that relief.
Why is there no control o f overcapitalization o f the overissue of stocks and
bonds of corporations, another means by which the people are defrauded?
Why is there no effective control o f railroad, passenger, and freight rates
a^ter 40 years agitation? Do the people want reasonable railroad rates, or
do the people conduct the Government of the United States?
The present discussion o f railroad freight rates on the floor o f the Senate and
on the floor o f the House is almost entirely in vain, because the jury is not a
jury in sympathy with the people, but a jury that, most unfortunately, under
machine rule, can not be free from the influence o f the enormous power of the
railroads in politics. The debate is well-nigh useless, and for this reason will
amount to nothing in the way o f substantial relief to the American people,
except to defeat a skillful raid planned against the people under color o f serv
ing them.
Why is there no adequate control of the discrimination o f railways against
individuals, or discriminations in favor o f one community against another?
The people are opposed to these discriminations, but their representatives—the
party leaders who are in power—do not adequately represent the reasonable de
sires of the people.
Why is there no physical valuation o f railways— giving the railway companies
generous consideration of every value they are entitled to— as a basis of honest
freight and passenger rates? T h e . Interstate Commerce Commission has re
peatedly advised us that it was essential and necessary, but yet there has been
no response from the authorized representatives o f the people.
I F T H E P E O P L E R U L E , W H Y DO T H E Y N O T GET W H A T T H E Y A B E E N T IT L E D T O ?
Why is there no parcel post1 Would it serve the interest o f the people and
protect the deficit o f the Post Office Department?
Undoubtedly.
But the
310 9 2 — 10612
great express companies have such political power with the dominant repre
sentatives of the people that the dominant representatives do not justly repre
sent the people, but represent instead those who contribute money and influence
secretly to campaign funds.
Why do we not have a national development of good roads, cooperating with
every State and county in the Union?
The people undoubtedly want it and undoubtedly need it.
Why do we not have a systematic development of our national waterwayst
The people want that, but the recent rivers and harbors will, appropriating
fifty-two millions, spent many millions on local projects with political prestige,
but without a thoroughgoing national design.
The people desired a pure food and drug act, and it took a long time to get
it, and its administration now is made altnost impossible by the influences over
government of self-promoting commercial interests.
Why is equality of opportunity being rapidly destroyed and absorbed by cor
porate growth and power without any protection o f the young men and o f the
young women and people o f the land? Do the people want equality of oppor
tunity? Was it not promised in the Republican platform?
The people universally desire an income tax. It was defeated in the Supreme
Court by a fallacious argument, which I have heretofore pointed out, and will
probably be defeated as a constitutional amendment because o f machine rule
and the influence o f private interest with machine rule, which is more potential
than the public welfare.
Why do the people not get a progressive inheritance tax on the gigantic for
tunes of America? The people want it. Every nation in Europe has it, even
under monarchies, as I have heretofore shown, with the most exact particulars.
Common honesty and fairness demands it, its constitutionality is affirmed by
the highest courts, and it would not offend the feelings of the most avaricious
multimillionaire at the time o f its enforcement—after he was dead.
Why do we wait so long fo r the admission of Arizona and New M exicof For
years it has been promised; for years those people have waited upon the ad
ministration of justice by the Congress of the United States.
Finally, Mr. President, why do we not have election o f Senators by direct vote
of the people 1 The elected representatives of the people in four preceding Con
gresses have, by a vote substantially unanimous, favored and passed resolu
tions for this purpose. Did they represent the people o f the United States?
Thirty-seven States now stand for it. Do they represent the people of the
United States? All the great nonpartisan organizations o f the country, the
American Federation o f Labor, the Society o f Equity, the National Grange, the
Farmers’ Educational and Cooperative Union, and every one of the great politi
cal parties with the exception o f the dominant party, in its national platform,
and even here a majority, a great majority, of Republican States favor it and
have so expressed themselves, and yet no action. Nine-tenths o f the people
want it, and the Senate of the United States defeats it, and the Senator from
Idaho [Mr. II eybubn] amuses the Senate by calling this mature judgment of
the American people “ popular clamor.” It is enough to make the Senate laugh,
this mirth-provoking “ popular clamor,” evidenced by the insane legislatures of
Idaho and Kentucky.
It Is wrong to inquire—
DO T H E PE O PL E B U L E ?
Everything that they stand for and desire is defeated. All of the great doc
trines that they have been urging forward are obstructed. Some of the Repub
lican leaders say, “ Yes; the people rule through the Republican Party.” My
answer is, Mr. President, that if the people ruled through the Republican Party,
they would have long since answered th<Hr own prayers and demands favorably
and not denied themselves their oren petitions.
Mr. President, the evils which have crept into our Government have grown up
naturally under the convention system, not through the faults o f any particular
man or any particular party. I believe in the integrity o f the great body of the
Republican citizens of this country,.but I have little patience with pure machine
politics guided by selfish interests in either party. The system o f delegated
government affords too open and abundant opportunity for commercialism and
for mere self-seeking political ambition.
It has seized upon the party in power, as it always seeks to do with the party
that can deliver, and it will be a task o f enormous difficulty to purge the party
31092— 10612
14
in power o f these dangerous and sinister forces, if, indeed, it do not prove
utterly impossible except by its retirement from power.
In some cases delegated government, even under a machine form, is per
fectly upright, perfectly honest, and serves the cause of the people excellently
well, but the mechanism o f government by the delegate plan affords too great
opportunity for the alliance o f commercialism and political ambition. An
ordinary State convention, under the machine-rule plan, is composed o f dele
gates delegated from county conventions; the county conventions consist of
delegates delegated from the ward primary; the ward primary consists o f a
ward boss, a bouncer or two, and a crowd o f strikers who do not represent
the actual membership o f the party voters o f that ward, so that when a
Senator is nominated by a State convention he is often three degrees removed
from the people, and is the choice o f a machine and does not really feel fully
his duty to the inarticulate mass.
It will be better for this country when Senators and Members o f Congress
and State legislators and municipal legislators are chosen by the direct vote
o f the people and when the people have the right of recall by the nomination
o f a successor to their public servants. The people will never -abuse their
power.
The great political need -in the United States is the establishment o f the
direct rule o f the people, the overthrow o f machine politics, the overthrow of
corrupt or urvwise use o f money, intimidation, coercion, bribery; the overthrow
o f the various crafty corporate and political devices which have heretofore
succeeded in nullifying the will o f the people.
The great issue is to restore the direct rule of the people as members of
parties and within both parties, and to abate the malign influence o f machine
methods.
The great issue is to enable the members o f the Republican Party to control
it, to provide a mechanism by which the members o f the Republican Party,
for example, can really nominate their own candidates for public office and
for party office, and then require their elected representatives to represent the
people who elect them and make effective the will o f the party members who
have nominated and elected them.
The great issue is to enable the members o f the Democratic Party to directly
nominate their own candidates, both in the party itself and for public office,
and then require such public servants so nominated and elected to represent the
people who nominated and elected them under penalty of the recall or under
the safeguards o f the initiative and referendum.
All the people now have is the power to defeat on election day a bad candi
date, and thus they exercise some influence over nominations. The people do
not in reality rule.
The people appear to rule through the present machinery of party govern
ment, but they do not rule in fact, because the party machinery is so largely
in the hands o f machine men, is so largely controlled in the interest o f the few
and against the interest o f the m any; because the present mechanism o f party
management is so contrived as to largely exclude automatically the cooperation
of the great body o f the members o f the party, and is so contrived as to cause
the party power to fall by gravity into the hands of professional managers.
The remedy for these evils is to restore the government o f the people and to
modify the present mechanism o f party government, so the party members may
conveniently control their own party.
In order to accomplish this there must be—
First. An honest and effective registration law.
Second. An honest and effective ballot law.
Third. A direct primary law, properly safeguarded, by which candidates for
public office and for party office may be directly and safely nominated.
Fourth. Constitutional and statutory laws providing the initiative and ref
erendum, by which the people may directly legislate, if the legislature fail,
and may directly exercise the veto power over an act o f their representatives
in the*legislature if a law is passed they do not want.
Fifth. A thoroughgoing corrupt-practices act, forbidding election rascalities,
prohibiting the use o f money, and providing full publicity.
Sixth. An act providing for the publicity pamphlet, giving the arguments for
and against every measure, the argument for and against every candidate, and
putting this pamphlet in the hands o f every citizen before each election fo r his
information and guidance.
31092— 10612
Seventh. The right o f recall.
In order to get relief from the evils, a few of which I have tried to point out,
these important statutes must be written on the statute books o f every State,
and the machine must not be allowed to fill them full o f “ jokers.” The machine
must not be allowed to change a word o f these laws that does not stand the
approval of the friends o f the rule o f the people.
In order to have these laws passed by the State legislatures, every candidate
for membership in the legislature should be questioned and his written answer
demanded by authorized committees o f the people— committees partisan and
nonpartisan, committees Republican and Democratic, committees o f all parties,
committees of the American Federation o f Labor, o f the Farmers’ Union, o f the
Grange, and of other organizations o f free men, operating together whenever
convenient.
The candidates for the legislature who refuse to agree to support cordially the
legislative program o f the people’s rule deserve to be defeated as they were
defeated in Oklahoma in the campaign for the constitutional convention in 1906.
Question the candidates on the people’s rule.
No candidate can expect, or ought to expect, the vote o f the people when he
defies the right o f the people to rule.
The Democratic Party inscribed on its banners in the last national platform
the doctrine o f the people’s rule, and I do hope all Democrats will do what they
can to make effective the platform declaration by concrete laws.
The enemies o f the people’s rule obscurely discourse about destroying repre
sentative government. Nobody should be deceived for a moment by this
illogical, unreasonable, unfounded, and utterly absurd pretension. It is the
argument of the machine and should brand the proponent as an enemy of
popular government.
My representative represents me best when he receives my instruction and
when I retain the right to instruct him and to recall him and to act inde
pendently o f him if necessary.
I firmly believe in representative government
Those who stand for the people’s rule program believe in representative gov
ernment.
It is representative government they want
It is representative government they demand.
It is representative government they insist on.
The end o f misrepresentative, corrupt machine government is the corollary of
this demand and its necessary complement.
I trust to see the time come, Mr. President, when the citizen can vote with full
knowledge and by secret postal ballot, to be counted at State headquarters and
registered with the same certainty, secrecy, and security that his check would
be registered in a bank office, without cost, without inconvenience, and at his
leisure.
Only by the overthrow o f corruption in politics and by the elimination o f the
sinister influences of commercialism will the people o f the country ever be able
to consider dispassionately the great matters o f public policy which are so essen
tial to their future development and welfare. When we shall have purged our
Government o f dishonest methods and have provided a means by which the
people can intelligently and honestly rule; when we shall have provided a
mechanism by which the people c m authoritatively express themselves, they will
vote for universal peace. The people o f the United States to-day, if they could
vote on the question o f international peace, on the question o f limiting the arma
ment of nations, would heartily be in favor o f it. The people of Germany would
vote the same way. The people of Great Britain would vote the same way.
The danger o f war arises not from the people, but from ambitious leaders,
anxious for activity, anxious for service, anxious for promotion. The dogs of
war in every nation are anxious to fight, and commercial interests engaged in
furnishing the muniments o f war. in furnishing material for building battle
ships, All the press with rumors o f war when Gie naval appropriation is before
Congress, and these things tend to irritate nations with each other.
The international mischief-makers, who prate too much about the excessive
delicacies o f questions o f national honor that can only be settled by the arbitra
ment o f war, should be sternly suppressed and would be rendered powerless
for harm under the rule o f the people.
I f the people could express themselves, they would immediately vote fo r good
roads, improved waterways, wholesale education, eight hours o f labor, improved
31092— 10612
•
16
p r o t e c tio n o f th e p u b lic h e a lth , l o w e r p r ic e s , r e a s o n a b le c o n tr o l o f p u b lic -u t ilit y
c o r p o r a tio n s , r e a so n a b le fr e ig h t r a te s , r e a so n a b le r a te s b y e x p r e s s , te le p h o n e ,
a n d te le g r a p h , t h e r ig h t o f d ir e c t le g is la tio n , a n d to c o n tr o l th e ir p u b lic s e r v a n ts .
Mr. President, the citizens o f the great Republic wait in vain for substantial
relief, while machine politicians in State and municipalities growl at each
other; but the Democrats and Republicans at home and men o f all opinions
are robbed with perfect impartiality by the organized monopolies and trade
conspiracies o f this country. I am unwilling to see the people wait any longer.
Mr. President, the people’s rule is the only way to end political corruption,
and I am rejoiced to see the great American press giving the question o f the
new system o f government vigorous attention. With the active help o f the
newspaper men of the United States this system will be in control o f the United
States in two and a half years.
The newspaper men who appreciate the gradual closing o f the doors o f op
portunity for young men by the gigantic growth o f monopoly will stand for
the rule o f the people, as the doctrine of organized righteousness and as t h e
s o u n d e s t s a f e g u a r d o f p r o p e r t y r i g h t s as well as o f human rights.
Unrestrained organized greed can not oppress human beings too far without
explosive consequences o f far-reaching danger to property rights.
The compilation o f laws, with explanatory notes, which I have submitted as
a Senate document, looks to the restoration o f the rule o f the people o f the
United States; and when I say people, I mean the rule o f the Republican
people, the Democratic people, the independent people, the Socialist people, and
the Populist people. And, Mr. President, I ask that it be printed as a Senate
document. [S. Doc. No. 603.}
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. K e a n in the chair). The Chair hears no
objection to the request o f the Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. OWEN. At present these people do not rule; they only think they rule.
They are, in fact, ruled by an alliance between special commercial interests, at
the head o f which is the great political trade combination known as the Pro
tective Tariff League and a great political machine whose name I need not
mention in this presence.
Mr. President, the Senator from Oregon has heretofore set up in the clearest
possible manner, in his most notable and valuable speech o f May the 5th, the
system o f the people’s rule o f Oregon. I wish to give it my cordial approval
and to say with the adoption o f this method the people o f the United States
can relieve themselves in very great measure, if not entirely, o f the sinister
influences to which bad government in this country is directly due.
PR O G RESS
OF
SYSTEM .
Mr. President, as one o f the steps to the restoration o f the people’s rule I
call to the attention o f the Senate Senate joint resolution No. 41, providing for
the submission to the States o f the Union o f a constitutional amendment pro
viding for the election o f Senators by direct vote o f the people, and move that
the Committee on Privileges and Elections be instructed to report the same
at the first day o f the next session o f this Congress, which will give the com
mittee abundant time; and on this motion I call for the yeas and nays. (My
motion talked to death. R. L. O.)
3 1 0 9 2 — 1 0 612
o
[To be released Saturday p. m., June 20,1914.]
Duty and Opportunity of the Present Ruling Majority in
Congress.
SPEECH
OF
HON. R OB E R T
OF
I
n
th e
S
en ate
L. O W E N ,
O K LA H O M A ,
of
th e
U
n it e d
S
tates
,
S a tu rd a y, J u n e 20, 191k-
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the Democratic national plat
form includes the following pledge:
W e call attention to the fact that the Democratic Party’s demand
for a return to a rule of the people, expressed in the national platform
four years ago, has now become the accepted doctrine of a large
majority of the electors.
W e again remind the country that only by
the larger exercise of the reserved power of the people can they pro
tect themselves from the misuse of delegated power and the usurpation
of governmental instrumentalities by special interests. For this reason
the national convention insisted upon the overthrow of Cannonism and
the inauguration of a system by which the United States Senators
could be elected by direct vote. The Democratic Party offers itself to
the country as an agency through which the complete overthrow and
extirpation of corruption, fraud, and machine rule in American politics
can be effected.
No plank in the Democratic platform was o f greater im
portance than the pledge to overthrow corruption, fraud, and
machine rule in politics. Machine rule and corruption in party
government has been the bane o f both the Republican and Demo
cratic Parties, and one of the greatest difficulties in the way of
perfecting true and honest democratic government.
The means by which machine rule and corruption have accom
plished their sinister designs are perfectly well understood,
and the remedy is perfectly well understood by students of
government.
The Democratic Party and the members of the Republican
party as well, should join with enthusiasm in eliminating cor
ruption and machine rule. The Republican Party was torn in
half by machine rule in Chicago in 1912. No Senator on this
floor, I believe, would venture to say that he thought it a wise
policy to permit in any way machine rule, fraud, or corruption
in our election machinery. But no individual seems to feel
charged with the responsibility of preparing the necessary meas
ure and urging its passage which will make effective the right
of the people to express themselves freely and to have au
thoritative knowledge of the claims o f the candidates and of
measures and have their will made effective.
I propose, therefore, a resolution charging the Committee on
Privileges and Elections with this duty, in the hope that it
may meet with the sympathetic cooperation not only o f all
Democrats, but of all the Republican and Progressive Senators
as well.
To facilitate these reforms I have prepared and submit here
with four proposed bills.
2
CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND EXPENDITURES.
First. The first law requiring important amendment is the
law preventing private individuals from contributing unlimited
amounts of money in the campaigns relating to the Presidency
and to the Members of Congress and Senators. I have had this
statute carefully examined and prepared by one of the ablest
experts in the United States on this question. Mr. George H.
Shibley, and I have introduced it and had it referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections, Senate bill 5810.
The present law permits any amount of contribution to be
made and expended by private persons in relation to these elec
tions and permits intrastate committees the liberty of doing as
they please with regard to the nomination and election of Sen
ators and Congressmen, without any conditions being imposed
by the Federal law. The plan which I have proposed is to lay
down a minimum o f requirements in the way o f contributions and
expenditures by corporations, committees, or individuals; and
if passed, this bill will have an important effect upon diminish
ing fraud in the election o f Congressmen and Senators, and
would have an important effect on overthrowing machine rule
and corruption.
P U B L IC IT Y
PAM PHLETS.
Second. In order to enable the people to have knowledge of
the claims of the candidates or the public measures upon which
they vote there should be a public pamphlet issued at Govern
ment expense and delivered by Government Postal Service to the
hands of each citizen, giving proper space to each candidate
and to each measure voted on. In like manner, I have had
prepared and submitted a bill, Senate bill 5865, covering this
subject. This bill would permit a man without wealth to make
the race for the Senate, and also for Congress, and would place
his claims before every voter. The bill proposes a partial con
tribution, so as to prevent irresponsible candidates entering the
field.
PR E F E R E N T IA L BALLO T.
Third. I propose a preferential ballot in order to prevent
minority or plurality nominations, which is the most important
instrument in the hands o f the machine politicians who have
always a highly organized, militant minority under their con
trol, led by captains and lieutenants. They divide the un
organized but more honest majority into three or four or more
groups by bringing out a number of unsophisticated candidates,
each of whom can command a popular following because of indi
vidual merit, and with an organized minority of twenty to
thirty per cent o f the voters, aided by selfish interests and by
fraud, the machine can put over its plurality nomination and
win the party nomination and then demand party allegiance
and party loyalty in support of their unfairly minority-nomi
nated candidate.
The preferential ballot automatically coheres a majority of
electors in favor o f the candidate most acceptable to the ma
jority and destroys the plurality nomination, which, as I have
stated, is the chief agency of the political machine. The Demo
cratic Party can not make effective its platform pledge unless
it disarms the political machine. I have had prepared a suitable
statute, as above, on this point, Senate bill 5S09, which I urgently
commend to the attention o f the Senate, not only the Democrats
3
but the Republicans as well, because it is equally important to
honest Republicans as to honest Democrats that a majority of
the Republicans should be permitted to nominate candidates
acceptable to a majority o f their party members, as it is to the
Democrats to have the right to nominate candidates acceptable
to a majority of their members.
I remind the Senate that the preferential ballot was adopted
by both branches of Congress in the Federal reserve act, sec
tion 4, for the selection of the directors of the 12 Federal reserve
banks, and this system is perfectly well understood by the
country.
CORRUPT PRACTICES.
Fourth. I have also had drawn in like manner Senate bill
5864, to define corrupt practices in connection with campaigns
for the nomination or election of United States Senators and
Congressmen, and to provide punishment therefor. I believe
that every Senator will agree, whether he be Democrat or Re
publican or Progressive, in the importance o f having the nomi
nations and elections of the Congressmen and Senators free
from corrupt practices.
These and other steps are obviously necessary to carry out
the pledge of the Democratic national platform at Baltimore, in
which the Democratic Party offered itself to the country as
“ an a g e n c y th ro u g h w h ic h th e c o m p le te o v e r th r o w a n d e x tir p a
tio n o f c o r r u p t io n , f r a u d , a n d m a c h in e r u le in A m e r ic a n p o litic s
ca n
he e ffe c te d .”
PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY.
I think we should provide for the nomination o f candidates
for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency by the preferential
primary ballot, and that proper statutes should be drawn and
enacted covering this point along the line recommended by the
President in his annual message last December.
The Democratic platform upon this point declared:
The movement toward more popular government should be promoted
through legislation in each State which will permit the expression of
the electors for national candidates at presidential primaries.
In order to have uniformity in the 48 States. Congress should
lay down a few fundamental rules, which would be a minimum
condition imposed upon the States in this legislation. At pres
ent Congress requires the States to conform to certain rules in
selecting Senators, and the constitutionality of the imposition
upon the States of a reasonable requirement in regard to this
matter will not be denied, since it is the practice o f a hundred
years.
The State primaries on presidential, senatorial, and con
gressional candidates could be ordered to take place the second
Tuesday in June, beginning in 1916, and the national conven
tion authorized and required to meet within 30 days thereafter
for the sole purpose of ratifying the primaries and writing the
platforms.
The conventions should consist of nominees for Congress, for
the Senate, and of hold-over Senators not defeated in the
primaries.
The Federal Government within its sphere is as sovereign as
are the States within their sphere, and the Federal Government
can and should by statute indicate the minimum requirements
that should be provided by the laws of the several States in
4
perfecting the right of the Federal Government to have its
officers nominated and elected by a majority of the people,
safeguarded against fraud and corruption. If the minimum
requirements are not provided by the State law, then the
Federal requirement should apply, as in the case of the recent
statute for the election of Senators.
If the Democratic Party now in power leaves the country un
der tlie machine-rule system, with the door wide open to fraudu
lent practices in nominating and electing Senators and Members
o f Congress, after its solemn promise to the American people
and after it has been trusted with i>ower by the American people,
for the chief purpose of controlling the special interests and
the vicious alliance between corrupt business and corrupt poli
tics, it will undoubtedly receive severe condemnation for vio
lating these vital promises so intimately affecting integrity of
government.
I move, therefore, the following resolution :
Whereas the party now in power appealed to the American people in
1912 upon the following statem en t:
“ The Democratic Party offers itself to the country as an agency
through which the complete overthrow and extirpation of corrup
tion, fraud, and machine rule in American politics can be effected; ”
and
Whereas it is the sincere desire of all patriotic men of every party to
terminate corruption in governm ent:
Resolved, That the Committee on Privileges and Elections prepare the
bills necessary to more strictly control corruption, fraud, and machine
politics in the nomination and election of the officers of the United
States, and to enable the people to have authoritative knowledge with
regard to the claims of candidates.
o
SHALL THE PEOPLE BE TRICKED OUT
OF THEIR POWER TO RULE?
The warfare of the allied reactionary corporation and political
interests to prevent the successful establishment and permanence of
the initiative and referendum in American States and cities has been
directed along four general lin e s:
1. To prevent their introduction at all.
2. To have them declared “ unconstitutional ” by the courts.
3. To induce legislatures to insert “ jo k ers” in proposed amendments
which would render them unworkable when secured.
4. To break them down after they are secured.
In Missouri, for example, the legislature has submitted, in the place of
the good one now in force, a substitute amendment, which, if adopted,
will practically kill the initiative and referendum in that State.
R E MA R K S
OF
OWEN
OIT O K L A H O M A
IN THE
S E N A T E OF T H E U N IT E D STATES
AU GU ST 20, 1911
PRESENTING A STATEMENT BY THE
NATIONAL POPULAR GOVERNMENT LEAGUE
ENTITLED
THE NATION-WIDE ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
WASHINGTON
1914
REMARKS
OF
IION. R 0 B E 1 1 T
L. O W E S .
S H A L L T H E PE O PL E B E T R IC K E D O U T OF T H E IR PO W ER TO R U L E ?
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the assaults being made upon the
Initiative and referendum throughout the Nation merit the
careful attention of every American citizen who believes in
popular government and genuine majority rule.
Direct legislation is now in operation in 15 States, and its
adoption is a vital issue in many others. Its advance is, of
course, bitterly opposed by the special interests. But not con
tent with combating the further extension of the initiative and
referendum, various corrupting corporations and the corrupt
political machines under their influence or control are deter
mined to destroy these instruments of self-government in States
which have already secured them.
In Missouri, for example, the legislature has submitted, in
place of the excellent provision now in force, a new substitute
amendment which will, if adopted, practically kill the initiative
and referendum in that State. The people o f Missouri are not
aware of the true character of the proposal made to them.
They are being asked to support a deceptive substitute, on
the grounds that it will prohibit the initiative from being ap
plied to the single tax. As a matter of fact, they are being
asked to renounce the sovereign control which they now possess
over the lawmaking function, forfeit the powers they gained
after years of struggle, and once more place the State legislature
in supreme control over themselves.
In Montana the supreme court has recently been asked to in
validate, upon absurd technicalities, an initiative and referen
dum amendment adopted by the people of that State in 1906.
In Arkansas the supreme court has by unfriendly decisions
destroyed a great part of the amendment adopted in 1910.
In Washington the organized farmers and workingmen have
found great difficulty, under the unjust and arbitrary condi
tions imposed by the legislature, in securing petitions for laws
desired by them. Even after petitions have been secured,
the State officials are seemingly making every effort to keep
these questions off the ballot—questions which the special in
terests do not want submitted to the people.
In Oregon an attempt is being made to secure the passage of
a law which will render it almost impossible to secure petitions.
In Colorado Gov. Ammons has declared himself in favor of
inhibitive restrictions. Like attacks might be mentioned in
other States.
Mr. President, the cause o f this sinister warfare against the
people’s new-found liberties is not far to seek. Many laws o f
the highest importance to equalize opportunity, to conserve, pro
tect, and develop human life and human energy are urgently
58178— 13871
3
4
needed. Those great objects are to be accomplished by a series
of measures involving social and industrial reforms. There is
in reality a political struggle being waged between the masses
of the people and the organized forces of human selfishness,
which have systematically glorified the acquisition of property
at the expense of human life and happiness.
It is the failure o f representative government to give the
people what they want that has caused the people of several
States to demand and secure the initiative and referendum. A
demand for direct legislation is being made by the people of
every State. This movemeut the forces of reaction are deter
mined to overthrow; if not openly, then by betrayal. This is the
explanation of all these amazing attempts to prevent true selfgovernment from being established in this Republic, founded
upon the principle of the sovereignty o f the people. This is why
men who claim to reverence Thomas Jefferson and Abraham
Lincoln bend their energies to subvert and annihilate methods
o f government which embody the very essence of every principle
for which those great exponents of government by the people
stood. I deem it a public duty to expose upon the floor o f the
Senate this attack upon popular government, and I desire to
insert as a part of my remarks a statement upon this subject
prepared by the National Popular Government League, of this
city, which sets forth in detail the methods now being employed
to destroy the initiative and referendum and block the efforts
o f the American people to attain true political liberty.
If there is no objection, I should like to insert that in my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Pittman in the chair).
.Without objection, it will be so ordered.
The matter referred to is as follow s:
TUB N A T I O N -W I D E A T T E M P T T O D E S T R O Y T H E E F F I C I E N C Y O F T I I E
T IV E
AND
IN IT IA
REFERENDUM .
A statement prepared by Judson King, executive secretary of
the National Popular Government League, and individually re
viewed, accepted, and approved by the following officers of the
league:
President: H on. R o b e r t L. O w e n . United States Senator. Oklahoma.
Vice presidents: d ia rie s S. Barrett. Union City, Ga., president Na
tional Farmers’ U n ion ; Hon. G eorge E. C h a m b e r l a i n , United States
Senator, Oregon; lion. M o srs E. C l a i *p , United States Senator, Min
nesota ; Samuel Gompers, Washington, D. C., president American Federa
tion of L ab or; I)r. John It. Haynes, Los Angeles, father direct legisla
tion in C alifornia; C. B. Kegley. Palouse, W ash., president National
Conference of Progressive State G ranges; Hon. M. C l y d e K e l l y . Con
gressman, Pennsylvania: John P. W hite, Indianapolis, president United
Mine Workers of America.
Of the finance com m ittee: George P. Hampton, chairman, New York
secretary Farmers’ National Committee on Popular G overnm ent; Hon!
W i l l i a m E. C h i l t o n , United States Senator. West V irgin ia; Carl
Schurz Vrooman, Bloomington, 111., author “ American railway prob
lems.”
Of the executive com mittee; Hon. Frank P. W alsh, chairman, Kansas
City, M o„ chairman Federal Commission on Industrial R elations: Prof.
Lewis J. Johnson, Cambridge, Mass., civil engineering. Harvard Uni
versity ; Dr. A. J. McKelway, Washington, D. C., southern secretary
National Child Labor Com m ittee; lion. G e or ge W . N o r r is , United
States Senator, Nebraska ; the president and executive secretary of the
league.
Of the committee on legislative fo rm s: W illiam S. U ’Ren, chairman,
Oregon City. Oreg., father of the “ Oregon system ” ; Hon. Robert
G r o s s e r , Congressman, chairman initiative and referendum committee,
Ohio constitutional convention; lion . Joseph W . Folk, Washington,
D. C., ex-governor of Missouri, solicitor Interstate Commerce Cornmls58178— 13871
Kion; “Francis J. Ileney, San Francisco, attorney at la w ; Stiles P. .Tones,
Minneapolis, secretary the Voters L eague; Penn W illiam Draper Lewis,
Philadelphia, law school University of Pennsylvania; Dr. Charles
McCarthy, Madison, W is., director legislative reference library; Milton
T . U ’llen, San Francisco, attorney at la w ; Delos F. Wilcox, Ph. D.,
New York, consulting franchise expert, author “ Government by all the
people.”
The warfare of the reactionary allied corporation and po
litical interests to prevent the successful establishment o f con
stitutional amendments and statute laws for the initiative and
referendum in American States and cities has been directed
along four general lines:
F IR S T .
TO
PREVENT
TTTE IU
IN T R O D U C T IO N
AT
AEE.
It took 10 years of strenuous fighting in Oregon to secure direct legis
lation, 12 years in Missouri, 18 years in Ohio. etc. After 22 years of
effort since the popular demand began, only 17 States have amendments,
such as they are.
SECOND. TO HAVE THEM DECLARED “ UNCONSTITUTIONAL ” ET COURTS.
Tlie Morgan interests carried a case to the Supreme Court of the
United States in an effort to have the Oregon am.-ndment— and hence
all amendments— declared “ repugnant to tlie Federal Constitution.”
The court decided in 1911 that it was a political question for Congress
to determine. And Congress has kept hands off. Attacks of like char
acter have been made in nearly all State supreme courts.
T H IR D . TO IN D U C E L E G IS L A T U R E S
AM ENDM ENTS
W H IC H
W OULD
SECURED.
TO IN S E R T “ J O K E R S ”
IN
PROPOSED
RENDER
THEM
UNW ORKABLE
W HEN
Of the 17 amendments adopted, only 8 can be called good. And
there are only 4 honest, adequate, complete systems in operation to-day.
The rest are all defective at vital points, and some are absolutely
worthless. Six proposed amendments w ill be voted on November 3,
1914. Four of these are worthless.
FOURTH. TO B R E A K THEM DOWN AFTER THEY ARE ESTABLISHED.
An account of attacks of this character is the subject of this writing.
In nearly every State which lias direct legislation the interests are con
stantly at work to destroy them or prevent their use on vital issues.
Tlie courts arc appealed to. the legislatures are seduced, and even tlie
people themselves are asked— not to repeal the initiative and referen
dum, the interests are too clever for that, but to vote for innocent
looking changes in the amendments which will deprive the people of
practical power to control the lawmaking function of their govern
ment.
It is these “ jo k ers” which shear the voters of their power and
against them all champions of government by the people should be on
their guard. An abortive initiative and referendum is worse than none
at all.
M IS S O U R I.
One of the cleverest attempts to deprive the people of a great
State of the powers they now possess under the initiative and
referendum is furnished just now by Missouri.
In 1912 an amendment to the State constitution proposing a
mild application o f the principle of the single tax was placed
upon the ballot by initiative petition, and, after one of the most
bitter and sensational campaigns of its kind ever known in the
State, was defeated by a vote of 508,137 against to 86,047 for.
Tho total vote for governor was 699,210; lienee S5.1 per cent
voted on the proposition. So great was the opposition to the
measure that a very considerable demand was made upon the
legislature to make it impossible for the single lax to be again
initiated. That was all. There was no demand from Xhe people
that the use of the initiative and referendum on other questions
be impaired or prohibited.
The legislature of 1913 submitted an entire substitute initia
tive and referendum section to be voted upon at the general
election, November 3, 1914, which contains a clause prohibiting
581 7 8 — 13871
G
the initiative and referendum from being applied to the single
tax; but it did not stop toith this.
Several other new provisions were inserted which, if adopted,
will render it easy to stop the use of the initiative and referen
dum on any subject whatever which may meet with any power
ful opposition.
THE
OPEN* R E S T R IC T IO N *,
What might be called the antisingle-tax section is as follow s:
The powers reserved or contained in this section as aforesaid shall not
be used to pass a law or constitutional amendment authorizing any
classification of property for the purpose of levying the different rates
of taxation thereon, or of authorizing the levy of any single tax on
land or land values or land sites at a higher rate or by a different
rule than is or may be applied to improvements thereon, or to personal
property, or to authorize or confer local option or other local powers in
matters of taxation in or upon any of the counties, municipalities, or
political subdivisions of the State, or to repeal, amend, or modify these
provisions relating to taxation.
This is a remarkable proposition.
Not only are the singletaxers tied up tight, but everyone else,
no matter how hostile to the single tax. The principle of prop
erty classification is not the single tax, but is urged by bitter
antisingletaxers. The principle of home rule iu taxation is not
the single tax. Even the Supreme Court of the United States,
which can not be said even to have single-tax leanings, declared
(Pacific Express Co. v. Seibert, 142 U. S. Repts., Sol) :
A system which Imposes the same tax upon every species of property,
irrespective of its nature or condition or class, will he destructive of the
principle of uniformity and equality in taxation, and of a just adapta
bility.
PEOPLE POWERLESS TO CHANGE THIS.
The people are thus asked to surrender any practical control
over the function of taxation; but, what is more, they are spe
cifically cut off from ever recovering control if they so desire.
They can not use the initiative and referendum to “ amend, re
peal, or modify these provisions relating to taxation.” If the
old adage be true, tliat the power to tax be the power to govern,
then a more humiliating proposition was never presented to a
free citizenship.
OTHER
r.UIN*OL*S r r . o v i s i o N * s
a p p l y in g
to
a l l
p e t it io n s
.
But this is not the most important thing. Let us examine
further. Another new provision, the conditions of which are
in another place repeated so as to apply also to the referendum,
reads:
Initiative petitions shall he filed with the respective county clerks of
the respective counties in which the signers thereof reside and vote not
less than f o ir months before the election at which they are to be voted
upon.
W ithin SO days after said petitions are filed with the respective
county clerks of the respective counties said initiative petitions shall
be, by said respective county clerks, laid before the county courts of the
respective counties, and said petitions shall be examined by the respec
tive county courts of the respective counties, and if the signatures
thereto arc found to be genuine signatures of voters of such counties,
they shall, at leust three months before the election at which thev are
to be voted upon, be certified by the respective county courts of the re
spective counties to the secretary of state.
This seemingly innocent section when coupled up with an
other provision “ that petitions must l>e secured—8 per cent for
the initiative and 5 per ceut for the referendum— in each of at
least two-thirds of the congressional districts in the State,” can
easily be made an insurmountable obstacle to the use of the in
itiative and referendum.
58178— 13S71
7
W nAT
COUNTY
CLERKS
C O U L D DO W I T H
ALL
P E T IT IO N S .
Now, watch carefully! All petitions must be in the hands of
county clerks four months before the election. That means in
1914, say, on July 3, with the election on November 3. But
the clerk may hold these petitions for 30 days before turning
them over to the county court. He can hold them till August
1 to 3, all petitions filed from July 1 to 3. Now, August -3 is
the date on which all petitions must be in the hands of the
secretary of state at Jefferson City—that is. “ three months be
fore the election ” —after being examined and certified by the
county courts. It would be a .physical impossibility for the
county court to do all this for all petitions filed late in June
or early in July, and the history of similar petitions filed in
States all over the Union shows that a goodly portion of such
petitions are filed shortly before or on the final date set. And
even if the people should file their petitions earlier, the power
of the county clerk to hold them 30 days would still be a menace
and could cause thousands of names to fail to reach the sec
retary of state in time.
The county court could easily refuse to certify a petition
to the secretary of state on the grounds that it had not had
time to examine the genuineness o f the signatures.
It is perfectly clear then, that any petition opposed by a
small number only of county clerics or county courts would have
no possible chance to get through, and these officials would all
act loithin their constitutional rights and could not be touched.
U N P R E C E D E N T E D T O W E R OVER P E T IT IO N S G IV E N T IIE C O U R T S .
But more dangerous still is the unprecedented power given the
courts to reject at will not only single-tax petitions but all
other petitions of the people. The text says petitions shall be
certified by the county courts “ if the signatures thereto shall be
found to be genuine signatures of voters of such counties” This
is the first instance where it has been provided not only that
genuine signatures must first actually be obtained, but that they
are then of no avail until proved genuine signatures of voters
before a judicial officer— the first time signatures authorized to
be procured by law are presumed to be false until found genuine
by the courts.
That this provision would absolutely kill every petition passed
upon by an unfriendly court can not be denied. The language
is plain; the effect is clear. The examination by the court and
the passing upon the signatures by the court, and its finding
them to be genuine, is one of the prerequisite steps of a valid
petition. Further, the amendment could not be aided by judicial
construction because it is a fundamental condition on which a
law can be initiated or referred.
In other States, and in Missouri now, the oath of the one se
curing the petitions that they are genuine signatures of voters
is sufficient to establish validity, and such petitions are pre
sumed genuine unless they are proven to be otherwise.
But in this provision the little word “ i f ” shifts the burden of
proof to the other side. It is not too much to say that a judge
desiring to strictly comply with the requirements laid down
could compel, or would have to compel, every man signing a
petition to come into court and prove to the satisfaction of the
court both that his signature was genuine and that he was a
legal voter of the county. Unquestionably, an intolerable bur58178—13871
den is here placed upon the judges ichtch is undesirable to them*
and one which it is inexpedient and unwise to place upon them.
This provision, if carried out, could and icould cause the re
jection of all petitions, because it is practically impossible for a
judge to examine into the genuineness of all the signatures of
his county. I f the judge were friendly to the initiated measure
he might assume to pass upon the signatures without an exami
nation, but if unfriendly he would simply say, “ I am unable to
find the signatures .‘ genuine signatures of voters of such coun
ties,’ ” and what then? There is no method prescribed for re
viewing the judge’s conduct. It being a judicial act, the judge
can not be compelled, by mandamus or otherwise, to find the
signatures “ genuine signatures of voters o f such counties.”
Had this section been simply an effort to have questionable
signatures passed upon it would have provided that within the
30 days anyone could present to the court evidence of the
falsity o f signatures questioned, and then the court would have
to pass upon only the questioned signatures instead of the un
questioned ones as well. If the court had to pass only upon the
genuineness o f the signatures, he might take the testimony of
those of actual voters of his county. Think o f a county judge
examining into the fact as to whether every signer o f a petition
is a voter.
If the courts, acting clearly within the powers thus granted,
could easily throw out petitions which were genuine, consider
with how much greater ease they could decline to certify a peti
tion on which a few illegal or doubtful names appeared. It is
always a simple matter for those opposing a petition to “ job ” a
solicitor, no matter how honest he may be, and get fraudulent
names upon a petition. Judges could hold the whole petition
incompetent because o f a few bad signatures, no matter how
genuine all the rest o f the petition might be. The whole pro
vision is comparable only to one which might prescribe that no
man's vote upon a measure could be counted until first passed
upon bp the courts.
E S P E C IA L L Y
H A HD
FOR
THE
FARM ERS.
The farmers have made active use o f the initiative and
referendum in nearly every one of the 15 States where it is in
Operation. They will want to do so in Missouri. The above
provisions will make it harder for them to secure valid peti
tions even than for town people. For example, the organized
farmers of the State of Washington this year initiated seven
laws of tremendous value to them, which were rejected by the
legislature. They appointed a joint legislative committee to
•manage the work o f securing the seven petitions, and fouud it
a difficult matter. Think of the additional money, anxiety, and
trouble it would cost the committee, under the proimscil Mis
souri c o n d i t i o n s , to watch all the county clerks and the county
courts to see if they were properly attending to petitions after
they had been filed. The farmers would be helpless against
hostile county courthouse “ rings,” aud the rings be protected
by the constitution itself. And, then, if they were blocked in
just 1 district out of the necessary 11. the whole Stale petition
would fail, even if all the voters in the other 10 districts had
signed the petition.
58178— 13871
9
TIES UP THE PEOPLE FOR SIX TEARS.
It is also provided that any law or amendment to the State
constitution rejected by a vote of the people can not be resub
mitted by petition for a period of five years. This means six
years, since Missouri has biennial elections. The provision
reads:
When any measure shall have been submitted to the people for their
approval under the potccrs reserved nr contained in this section, as
aforesaid, and shall he rejected by the people, neither the same measure
nor any other measure which shall have or tend to hare the same mean
ing, nor any other measure which shall have or tend to have the same
or similar effect as the measure rejected, shall again be submitted under
the said powers reserved or contained in this section for a term of five
years.
On first blush this is ostensibly inserted to prevent the early
resubmission of a defeated initiative measure. A law or consti
tutional amendment rejected in 3914 could not be again pre
sented till 1920, then 1926. and so forth, nor could anything
which a court might say “ tended in that direction ” be submit
ted. An emergency might arise, conditions might change, delay
might mean millions o f dollars lost; the people might desire
to Ret in 1910 or 191S, but they could not until 1920.
INCLUDES T1I3 REFERENDUM ALSO.
But this provision goes far deeper. It is so worded as to
apply to the referendum as well as the initiative. The phrase
“ powers reserved or contained in this section ” includes the
referendum.
An amazing limitation on the people is here disclosed which
can best be set forth by an example. Suppose the legislature
should enact an unpopular law—make some huge appropriation,
create some special privilege, give away a railway franchise, or
do anything which might be strongly opposed by the people?
Suppose a referendum petition is filed and the act is rejected
by an enormous majority. The very next session of the legis
lature could enact that exact law—or one like it— and the peo
ple could not vote on the question for six years.
A CONFISCATION OF THE PEOPLE'S POWER.
To sum up, what the people o f M issouri who vote fo r
this amendment think they are doing is to prevent an
other subm ission o f the single tax.
W hat they really w ill bo doin g is:
1.
To place iu the hands o f a few county officials pow er
to prevent the peop le’ s use o f the initiative and re fe r
endum on any subject.
„ 2 . T o surrender their present con trol o f the taxation
m achinery o f the State and hand it over to the legis
lature.
3 . To fix this legislative con trol in the constitution irre
vocably so that the people can never change or recover it.
„ 4. To deny to ail the people fo r six years the use o f
either the initiative or referendum on the subject matter
o f any m easure once rejected by popular vote.
, 5. To give the legislature absolute pow er to im m e
diately reenact its own laws which the people have rejected
through the referendum .
When closely examined, therefore, and its “ sleepers ’ pointed
out, the people of Missouri are asked in this substitute to vote
to curtail and destroy their own legislative powers and to
solemnly announce by their votes that they can not trust them58178— 13871
selves with the instruments of self-government, which they
now possess, but must return to the old conditions o f being
controlled instead of remaining their own masters as at pres
ent. I f this substitute carries, it will be the first time in
American history when the people by their own act have de
liberately deprived themselves of popular sovereignty.
It is unthinkable that a majority of the members of the
Missouri Legislature who voted for this substitute were cor
rectly informed as to the true significance of the changes pro
posed, as there are many members who are strong supporters
of direct legislation.
WHO IS BACK OF THIS SCHEME?
The whole situation is a pleasing prospect indeed—to the
reactionary interest. The railroads, the brewery interests, the
franchise grabbers, the wealthy tax dodgers, and, in short, all
forms of “ special privilege ” opposed to the people and who
hate the initiative and referendum with an undying hatred,
have now their golden opportunity. They know exactly what
they are about. Taking advantage of the resentment aroused
by the submission of the unpopular single-tax proposal they
hope to carry this new substitute amendment and so “ ham
string ” the initiative and referendum itself. If the people of
Missouri fall in with this scheme, they will find their hands
completely tied on any practical use of the initiative and refer
endum in the future.
The great mass of the voters do not know this. In truth,
proposed measures are so inadequately published in Missouri
that not more than one-third o f the voters will ever see the
text of this substitute.
Every citizen of Missouri who believes in Democracy and the
rule o f the people should awake to the fact that the passage of
this amendment would destroy his fundamental political rights,
won after years of struggle. It would place Missouri in the
column of reactionary States.
Talk about the danger of the single tax is without point.
The people of Missouri did not want it and voted it down
almost unanimously. It is absurd, therefore, to ask this same
people to indorse a proposition which implies that they are unfit
for self-government and unable to use the initiative and refer
endum.
Hence, the question before the people of Missouri is not
whether they want to vote on the single tax, but whether they
want to retain the power to vote upon anything.
Here is what some leading public men in Missouri and else
where think about the value of the initiative and referendum:
GOV. ELLIOTT W. MAJOB.
Gov. Elliott W. Major, when he was attorney general of
Missouri, filed a brief for the initiative and referendum before
the United States Supreme Court, in which he argues strongly
against the attempt to declare these measures unconstitutional,
and he said that they were the distinguishing right of the people
under a republican form of government.
GOV. HEBBEKT S. HADLET.
In his message to the Forty-ninth General Assembly o f Mis
souri, Gov. Hadley sa id :
I believe that, on the whole, the initiative and referendum in our
constitution has been beneficial.
Some persons have urged that the
5817 8— 13871
requirements for initiating laws or amendments to the constitution
should be made more diflicult. I do not agree with this suggestion
and I recommend that the law stand unchanged.
GOV. JOSEPH W. FOLIC, NOW ATTORNEY FOR THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION.
Ex-Gov. Folk, In liis address before the National Popular
Government League in Washington, D. C., on December G, 1913,
strongly condemned this attempt to kill the initiative and ref
erendum in Missouri:
I f the opponents of the initiative and referendum succeed in hob
bling it with this proposed amendment in this respect—
Taxation—
the next step, of course, w ill be to hobble it in some other respect, and
directly take away from the people the power to vote on some other
question. This, together ioith the other changes made by the new pro
posal, leads to the practical repeal or abolition of the initiative and
referendum. I hope the people of Missouri will not be misled into giv
ing up this power that they now have in their hands and the obtaining
of which has taken 14 years of political struggle.
If they tie their
hands now from voting on something they do not want, they will find
themselves powerless in the future to secure something they do want.
We want in this country not only good government, we want selfgovernment. We might have good government under a k in g ; we might
have so-called good government, though all of us be slaves. As between
good government without self-government and bad government with
self-government, I would prefer the latter.
The initiative and referendum are the tools of self-government, and
when the people have these in their hands they can make the Govern
ment just as good as they wish to make it or just as had as they suffer
it to become. The kind of government this movement for better things
demands is that which comes through governing ourselves.
EX-PltESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT.
In bis public addresses and in tlie platform of the Progressive
Party, Theodore ltoosevelt has repeatedly urged the initiative
and referendum ns necessary instruments in the hands of the
people to maintain self-government.
IION. WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN.
This great Democratic leader has for 18 years been an active
advocate for the initiative and referendum. Iu a letter written
July 15, 1914, urging the voters of Mississippi to adopt a pend
ing amendment providing for these powers, he said;
I regard the initiative nnd referendum the greatest modern improve
ment iu strengthening representative government.
PRESIDENT WOODROW WILSON.
In his book, “ Tlie New Freedom,” in chapter 10, entitled
“ The way to resume,” the President said:
Back of all reform lies the method of getting it—
And then he pointed out that the initiative and referendum
were necessary instruments in the hands of the people to secure
these reforms. They are the key that opeus the door to our
legislative house. He theu says:
The initiative is a means of seeing to it that measures which tlie
people want shall he passed when legislatures defy or ignore public
opinion. The referendum js a means of seeing to it that the unrepre
sentative measures which they do not want shall not be placed upon
the statute book.
OREGON.
The notable things accomplished by the people o f Oregon
through the initiative and referendum have been heralded to
the Nation. It is not generally known that since their adoption
in 1902 the iieople of Oregon have been engaged in a constant
struggle to preserve these legislative powers against repeated
G8178—13871
attacks by the enemies of popular sovereignty. The struggle is
still on.
The first attack was made by the State legislature of 1903
in an attempt to virtually set aside the referendum by declar
ing the “ emergency clause” upon laws the politicians did not
wish to go to the people. The then governor, Hon. G eorge E.
C h a m b e r l a in , now United States Senator from Oregon, being
a genuine friend of popular government saw the danger and
promptly met the issue by sending such bills back with a sting
ing veto. His messages roused the State, and it is now dan
gerous for any member to “ trifle ” with the emergency clause.
In 1906 the State grange initiated a law taxing the tele
graph, telephone, and express companies upon their gross in
comes. They were at that time practically untaxed. The bill
was adopted by the people. The Morgan interests refused to
pay the tax, and took this as a test case to the Supreme Court
o f the United States in an effort to have the Oregon initiative
and referendum declared “ unconstitutional,” and so kill the
movement in the entire Nation. They failed, but the struggle
was a costly and harrowing one to the people.
At every session of the legislature laws or changes in the
amendments are introduced calculated to “ pull its teeth.” For
example, in 1910 the legislature proposed a new constitutional
convention. The evident scheme was to fix up a new consti
tution in which all the new popular-government provisions
would be either abolished or rendered inoperative. A hard
campaign ensued, and it was rejected by the people.
In 1910 an amendment was submitted to the people to require
measures to receive a majority of “ all votes cast in the elec
tion ” to enact measures instead o f a majority of the votes cast
on the question, as at present. It took a vigorous campaign to
defeat this joker.
At the present time a new amendment is proposed which will
prohibit the employment o f solicitors to secure petitions. Need
less to say, this attempt is meeting with the strong opposition
of all organizations and men who know from actual experience
what it means to get petitions and what a blow this would prove
to the successful use of the initiative and referendum, as it
has already proven in the State of Washington.
IDAHO AND CTAII,
By a vote o f 43,698 to 13,490, the people o f Idaho placed in
their constitution at the election of 1912 what they supposed
was an initiative and ‘referendum amendment. It contained
several jokers, but, worst o f all, was not made self-executing.
It provided that the legislature should draft laws, filling in
details and putting it into effect. The legislature o f 1913, in
defiance o f the direct mandate o f the people, refused to pass
such legislation. This is a repetition of the same fraud which
was practiced upon the people o f Utah since 1900. The “ gen
eral principle” was put in the constitution, and for 14 years
the people have waited in vain for the legislature to put the
initiative and referendum in action. No legislature should be
permitted to fix by law the conditions upon which the people
may review its acts.
WASHINGTON.
The voters of Washington adopted the initiative and referen
dum at the general election o f 1912. It was a defective amend58178—13871
ment. Among other things, it failed to provide for the use of
the initiative on amendments to the State constitution. Gov.
Hay’s opposition to the constitutional initiative defeated him
for reelection. The legislature met in January, 1913, and under
the guise of “ safeguarding” the amendment, deliberately
passed an enabling act which needlessly placed severe handicaps
upon the people in any use of the initiative and referendum. It
is made a “ gross misdemeanor ” for a busy citizen to aid a
petition in which he is interested by hiring a solicitor to secure
signatures. Only names o f voters who are actually upon the last
registration lists can be counted on petitions, and so on.
On July 3, after a heroic struggle, the State Farmers’ Grange,
the State Farmers’ Union, the State Federation of Labor, and
the Direct Legislation League, acting under the direction of a
joint legislative committee, succeeded in surmounting the ob
stacles and filed petitions for seven laws—“ the seven sisters ” —
of great importance to the common people but undesired by the
politicians and the interests. Miss Lucy It. Case, of Seattle, a
most able woman and secretary of the committee, gave her
entire time for six months, without pay, to the work of secur
ing this petition. But even then the petition cost $1,2S1.93.
Thirty-one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six names were
necessary; 35,000 were secured and properly certified to before
the county registers, where they were signed.
The interests opposed to these laws organized a “ Stop, Look,
Listen League,” and spent thousands o f dollars in paid news
paper advertising and otherwise in an attempt to frighteu the
people away from signing petitions. They are now bending
every energy in an attempt to prevent the questions from going
on the ballot. In this they evidently have the support of the
State administration. The law requires the secretary of state
simply to count the signatures certified to by the county au
thorities, and if sufficient, he is required to place the questions
on the ballot. Instead of this Secretary Howell assumes juris
diction upon the genuineness of the signatures and is putting
the State to a frightful expense to verify work already done.
His every move is hostile and the seeming intent is, upon one
pretext or another, to throw out enough names to cause the
principal petitions to fail.
The attorney general, Mr. Tanner, makes the unheard-of
“ ruling” that during the 30 days given the secretary of state
by law to count the names citizens can withdraw their names;
and blanks for that purpose have been prepared in the office of
the secretary of state. But no new names can be added. The
“ Stop, Look, Listen League” is scouring the State to induce men
to withdraw (heir names, aud at this writing (July 27) it is
doubtful if the farmers’ important laws will go on the ballot.
But whatever the outcome, this experience of the people of
Washington serves as a warning to other States to watch “ en
abling a cts” closely. It further shows the bitter hostility of
reactionary politicians and corporations to permitting the people
expressing their will on important laws. Mr. C. B. Kegley, of
Palouse, Wash., master o f the State Grange, strongly opposes the
law prohibiting responsible organizations aud citizens from em
ploying solicitors, thus enabling the volunteer work to be sup
plemented by men who can give their entire attention to secur
ing petitions in a crisis.
58178— 13871
p
/
i*
In Arkansas the opponents of tlie initiative, referendum, aud
recall have met with success in their efforts to devitalize the
amendment through the decisions of a supreme court hostile to
these instruments of popular government.
The original amendment adopted in 1910 read:
The legislative power of this State shall he vested in a general as
sembly,
*
*
* hut the people of each municipality, each county,
and of the State reserve to themselves power to propose laws and
amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject the same at the
polls—
And so forth.
It is perfectly evident that this is a bungling attempt to
establish both the local and State-wide initiative and referen
dum in one short clause, so adored by constitutional lawyers.
In fact, the words “ of each municipality, of each county, and
of the State ” were inserted in the original draft as an amend
ment to accomplish this purpose, and not, as was claimed in the
campaign, to permit the cities to override the State constitu
tion.
Nevertheless the supreme court declared itself unable to
discover what the language meant, and so abolished the whole
clause, which took from the people their constitutional right of
initiative and referendum in counties and cities. Exit the local
initiative and referendum!
Next, the legislature o f 1913 passed a law under the “ emer
gency clause” and thus denied a referendum petition upon it
on the grounds that it was “ necessary for the immediate pres
ervation of the public peace, health, and safety,” but also pro
vided that the law should not go into effect for one year. The
supreme court upheld the legality of this action. Hence, exit
the referendum!
Next, in 1912 the people passed an amendment by initiative
petition establishing the recall on all public officers, including
judges. Also two other amendments.
Now, the constitution adopted in 1874 provided that the
legislature could submit only three amendments at any one
election. The initiative and referendum amendment adopted
in 1910—30 years later—did not disturb the old system, but
made no limitations on the number of amendments the people
might submit by petition.
At the 1912 election the legislature submitted proposed amend
ments No. 11 and No. 12. The people submitted No. 13, limit
ing the legislative session to GO days. No. 14 provided for the
recall of all elective officials, including judges; also No. 15.
All three of the initiate amendments were adopted by large
majorities. The election board refused to certify the adoption
o f Nos. 14 and 15, on the grounds that they were illegally
submitted.
Suit was brought, and the supreme court solemnly decided
that limitation of three, adopted in 1874, governed tlie amend
ment of 1910, and that amendments 14 and 15 must fall. This is
a complete reversal of the universal rule of construction that the
last enactment governs and repeals older enactments in conflict.
But by this means the recall was destroyed. Hereafter the
legislature can prevent the submission o f any amendment by
initiative o f the people by filling up the ballot with three amend
ments o f whatever nature. Exit the constitutional initiative!
5 8 1 7 8 — 13871
15
And at the present time it is given to this supreme court to
decide whether the people will have the right to vote at the
November election upon a bank-guaranty law and a law estab
lishing a State mining board and insure safety for miners.
These laws have been properly initiated and promptly enjoined
from going on the ballot by the bankers and mine owners.
OHIO.
Ohio adopted the initiative and referendum in 1912. Gross
frauds were practiced by the special interests in 1913 in an at
tempt to secure referendum petitions upon two statutes. These
frauds were widely heralded in the press and were made the
basis of a demand by these same special interests for a law
prohibiting solicitors for petitions to receive compensation. To
secure from 00,000 to 125,000 signatures of legal voters upon
petitions, as required in Ohio, is a gigantic task, and few peti
tions could be secured by volunteer work alone.
The friends of direct legislation in the legislature and outside
promptly met the issue, a campaign of education was made, the
help of the administration was secured, and a law preventing
fraudulent securing of petitions was passed, but not the thing
desired by the enemies of popular government.
The citizens of Toledo are engaged in a life and death strug
gle with the public-utility interests over a street car franchise
worth $25,000,000. These interests are now carrying a case
to the Supreme Court in an attempt to have the municipal
initiative and referendum law of the State declared “ unconsti
tutional,” and so deprive the people o f a vote upon the settlement
of this important question.
OKLAHOMA.
One of the most vital provisions o f a direct-legislation system
is adequate publicity upon pending measures for the informa
tion of the voters. Oregon has the best method. A neat State
pamphlet containing copies of the measures, with their ballot
titles, and also explanatory arguments for and against, fur
nished by citizens or organizations of citizens, is mailed from
the oflice of the secretary of state direct to the voters 50 days
before election. In Oklahoma, however, the legislature has
failed to provide for any arguments from citizens, and the sys
tem o f distribution is fatally defective. It is supposed to be
handed to the voters at the primary election by election offi
cials. On any vital measure opposed by the machines this is not
done adequately. Probably not more than one-third of the
voters ever see the pamphlet. Another vital defect in the Okla
homa system is the requirement that measures, to be adopted,
must receive a majority o f all votes cast “ in said election ”
instead of “ a majority of all votes cast thereon.”
TENDING AMENDMENTS.
At the general election November 3, 1914, proposed constitu
tional amendments for the initiative and referendum will be
voted upon in five States, as follow s:
Texas: Petitions must be signed by 20 per cent of the voters
for both initiative and referendum. This is preposterous. No
State should require over 8 per cent, and in no case more than
50,000 signatures for the initiative; nor more than 5 per cent,
and in no case more than 30,000 for the referendum, ih e
amendment is not self-executing and all other details must be
5S 178— 13871
1G
provided by the legislature. It is the Utah and Idaho trick all
over again. The adoption of this subterfuge would kill the
movement in Texas for years.
Minnesota: The Minnesota amendment is so full of jokers
and restrictions that space does not permit even an attempt at
discussion. One provision actually gives the legislature specific
power to prohibit the circulation of petitions on any subject it
sees fit.
Wisconsin: Submits a conservative but fairly good amendment,
which it will be worth while to adopt.
North Dakota: Amendment lacks the constitutional initiative,
requires too large petitions, and has a wicked “ distributing”
clause for petitions. There are other jokers. Not worth adopt
ing.
Maryland votes upon an amendment providing for the refer
endum only. It is in very good shape. The people, however,
are prohibited from referring any liquor law.
Ioica: An amendment was passed in 1913, which, if adopted
by the legislature of 1915, will be voted on in 191G. Among the
numerous jokers which render it worthless may be mentioned
the right given the legislature to fix petitions at anywhere from
12 to 22 per cent for the initiative, and from 10 to 20 per cent
for the referendum. Worthless.
This statement is by no means a complete account of the un
warranted and unjustifiable attacks made upon the initiative
and referendum in States and cities where they are established.
The few examples given illustrate the general tendency and
demonstrate beyond question that strenuous efforts are being
made to destroy the initiative and referendum in America, and
that the most dangerous forms which the opposition takes are,
first, to insert stealthy “ jok ers” in these provisions which un
expectedly operate at critical junctures against the exercise of
direct legislative powers by the people; and, second, to break
them down in the courts.
One of the most important functions of the National Popular
Government League (nonpartisan) is to point out these
“ jok ers” and warn the people against them. The league main
tains a bureau of information and its headquarters are at 1017
Munsey Building, Washington, D. C., where accurate informa
tion concerning these matters can be had freely upon application
to the executive secretary.
58178— 13S71
o
PEOPLE’S RULE VERSUS BOSS RULE
This Republic was not founder! on any so-called “ representative
principle.”
The Representative is merely a convenience, a servant, an
agency subject of right to the direct control of the people.
This Republic was founded on the principle that the people were
sovereign and had a right, if they pleased, to manage their business
directly, a God-given right, vested in them, inalienable and indefeasible,
and directly to alter, amend, or abolish any law. Every State constitu
tion declares and exemplifies this fundamental principle. Every State
constitution, except one, was established by the direct law-making power
of the people.
The option to use the initiative and referendum is not in conflict
with the present convenient system o f legislating through representa
tives, but is in harmony with that system and makes it more repre
sentative, not less representative.
R E MA R K S
OF
ROBERT
OF O K LA H O M A
IN THE
S E N A T E O F T IIE U N I T E D S T A T E S
MARCH 3, 1913
W A SH IN G T O N
G O VER N M EN T PR INTING O F FIC E
1913
84132— 11872
REMARK S
OF
HON.
KOBEET
L.
OWEN.
On Senate resolution 413, declaring that such a system of direct legis
lation as the initiative and referendum would establish is in conflict
with the representative principle upon which this Republic was estab
lished.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, the greatest duty of government
is to make effective the primary principle of the Declaration
o f Independence; to secure to the people, and to all the people,
the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
This inalienable right with which the people were “ endowed
by the Creator ” has been purloined from millions to the benefit
of the few through a series of political, commercial, and finan
cial monopolies slowly built up during the last 75 years.
This system has diverted the proceeds o f the labor of millions
't o the coffers of the few. until in spite of the wonderful modern
inventions of this age. which pours out a stupendous tlood of
material things which men desire, we see a thousand millions
of dollars of wealth in the hands o f a single man and millions
of human beings, willing and anxious to do honest labor, with
out the certainty of food and shelter to-morrow.
The unrestricted right to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness is thus denied millions, and the duty of the Govern
ment to make effective the fundamental doctrine of the Republic
as yet remains unperformed.
I deem it my duty to call the attention of the United States
Senate and the attention of the country to the cause and the
remedy o f this serious condition. I make no complaint of a
class, emphatically no complaint o f a rich class, nor do I com
plain o f the past. I am exclusively concerned with the imme
diate future welfare of men, women, and children.
THE
CAU SE.
The cause is this: The people's-rule party Government under
Jefferson has been in past years (from 1S44 to 100S) steadily,
if not stealthily undermined and replaced by the machine-rule
party government. In place o f the people’s rule the machine
rule, financed and engineered by special interests, has placed in
power on a vast scale in legislative, administrative, and judicial
positions machine-rule representatives—in municipalities. States,
and Nation. The rule o f the few was thus established. The
people have voted, but they have not really ruled.
The rule o f the few. consciously or unconsciously, has been
too largely for the benefit of the few at the expense of the
many.
The few have established all-pervading commercial and finan
cial monopolies: destroyed all competitive markets in selling
and buying; limited production on a giant scale, and deliberately
o
84132—11872
3
as a policy, thus limiting the employment o f labor; manufac
tured watered stocks and bonds by billions of value, on which
the people have been compelled to pay interest; squeezed and
expanded the credit market, damaging millions, that a few
might absorb values; and have compelled the laboring millions
to compete under harsh conditions with each other, until mil
lions o f women and children have been driven from the Amer
ican home into the labor market, and millions of children as
well as women and men have been denied the reasonable oppor
tunities of “ life, liberty, and the pursuit o f happiness.”
Machine-made representatives in legislative, executive, and
judicial position have granted and protected privilege to the few
at the expense of the many until we are face to face with the
most tremendous extremes o f wealth and poverty the world has
ever known.
The cause has been machine-rule party government in collu
sion with corrupt commercial and financial allies governing for
the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, at the expense
of all of the people, at the expense of the real producers of
wealth.
There are two very different kinds o f “ representatives ” in
the governing business. The machine-rule party government
representatives who take the point of view favorable to privi
lege and to the few, and the people’s-rule party government
representatives who take the point of view favorable to equal
rights to all, favorable to the great mass of men who labor as
artisans, workers in shop, field, forest, and mine, as professional
men or in transportation or in other human activities.
I do not trouble myself to question the motives of men; I am
concerned with the effect of the actions o f men.
TnE REMEDY.
The remedy is to restore people's-rule party government and
provide a mechanism by which the intelligence and patriotism
of the mass of men can control party government and can con
trol the actual direct government by people’s-rule representa
tives in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the
government.
The statutes necessary to this end are—
First. A thoroughgoing honest registration act.
Second. A thoroughgoing direct mandatory primary act.
Third. Honest election laws and machinery.
Fourth. A thoroughgoing corrupt-practices prevention act.
Fifth. The initiative, referendum, and recall; and the most
important of all these acts is the initiative and referendum,
which is the open door to all other reforms.
Above all the initiative and referendum offers the line o f least
resistance in obtaining reform for the reason that no candidate
before the people dares refuse the people the right o f the initia
tive and referendum where the demand is vigorously insisted on.
In its entire history the Senate has never had a more impor
tant question before it. It is the duty of the Senate to throw
the weight of its influence on the right side.
And I feel entirely justified in calling the attention of the
Senate and of the country to the urgent, vital importance o f this
issue and to defend it against the unjust assaults of its enemies.
Whatever I may say in regard to the matter must be re
garded as entirely impersonal, as I fully concede the right of
841 3 2 — 11872
4
others to differ with me and shall carefully abstain from at
tributing to other Senators any unpatriotic motive in promoting
their political philosophy, however mischievous and disastrous
I may think the effects of such doctrines would be if they should
be adopted.
Mr. President, on January 2, 1912, a then Senator from Texas
[Mr. Bailey] delivered an address o f three hours in the Senate
in an attempt to show that “ such a system o f direct legisla
tion ” as “ the initiative and referendum ” would establish would
be in conflict with “ the representative principle ” on which he
alleged “ this Republic was founded.”
This speech, on February 4, 1913 (C ongs e s s io n a l R ecord,
p. 2569), was offered to be printed as a Senate document.
In order to make this deliberate assault on the principles of
popular government the then Senator raised a moot question
by submitting and speaking to the following resolution:
Senate resolution 413.
Resolved, That such a system of direct legislation as the initiative
and referendum would establish is in conflict with the representative
principle on which this Republic was founded and would, if adopted,
inevitably work a radical change in the character and structure of our
Government.
No action was requested on this resolution. It is obvious
that this speech, offered to be printed as a Senate document,
was intended to be used as a campaign document by those who
oppose popular government and the initiative and referendum,
which is the open door to real popular government. This op
position to popular government has recently prepared numerous
speeches which have been printed as Senate documents for the
campaign against the people’s rule, some of which I shall men
tion. For example:
1. An address delivered by Mr. L odge (Senator from Massa
chusetts) at Raleigh, N. C., November 2$, 1911, on “ The Con
stitution and its makers,” and presented to the United States
Senate by a Senator from North Carolina [Mr. O v e r m a n ] , with
the request that it be printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc.
No. 122.).
2. An address delivered by Hon. E l i i i u R oot at the annual
meeting o f the New York Bar Association in New York City
on January 19, 1912, entitled “ Judicial decisions and public
feeling,” presented by a Senator from Utah [Mr. S u t h e r l a n d ],
with the request that it be printed as a Senate document, Janu
ary 2, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 271.)
3. An address delivered by Mr. Nicholas Murray Butler, presi
dent of the Columbia University, late Republican vice presi
dential candidate before electoral college, before the Commercial
Club of St. Louis, November 27, 1911, entitled “ Why should we
change our form o f government,” presented by a Senator from
Utah [Mr. S u t h e r l a n d ] on January 3, 1 9 1 2 , ‘ with the request
that it be printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 23S.)
4. An address delivered by Hon. S a m u e l W . M c C a l l , a Mem
ber of Congress from Massachusetts, before the Ohio State Bar
Association, on July 12,1911, entitled “ Representative as against
direct government,” presented by a Senator from Michigan [Mr.
S m i t h ] to the United States Senate, with the request that it be
printed as a Senate document, January 23, 1912. (S. Doc. No.
273.)
84132— 11872
5
5. An address delivered by Hon. Emmett O'Neal. governor of
Alabama, at the one hundred and forty-third annual banquet of
the Chamber of Commerce of the State o f New York at the
Waldorf, November 16, 1911, entitled “ Representative govern
ment and the common law—A study of the initiative and refer
endum,” presented to the Senate by a Senator from Texas [Mr.
Bailey], with the request that it be printed as a Senate docu
ment, January 3, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 240.)
6. An address by President Taft to the general court of the
Legislature of Massachusetts, at Boston, Mass.. March 18, 1912,
against giving the people direct power, presented to the United
States Senate by a Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Gall in g e r ] with a request that it be printed as a Senate document,
March 22, 1912. (S. Doc. No. 451.)
7. An address by Mr. Wendell Phillips Stafford Can Associate
Justice of the Supreme Court o f the District o f Columbia),
before the New York County Lawyers’ Association, February 17,
1912, entitled “ The new despotism,” referring to the despotism
of a majority of the citizens in the several States and in the
United States over the minority, presented by a Senator from
Utah [Mr. S u t h e r l a n d ] to the United States Senate, with the
request that it he printed as a Senate document. (S. Doc.
No. 344.)
8. An address delivered in the United States Senate by a
Senator from Utah [Mr. S u t h e r l a n d ], July 11. 1911. entitled
“ Government by ballot,” denouncing the initiative, referendum,
and recall (the principles of the constitution of Utah). (Senate
document room.)
9. An address by Hon. William IT. Taft (President o f the
United States) at Toledo, Ohio, on March 8, 1912, entitled
“ The judiciary and progress,” opposing the recall and the ex
tension o f popular government, presented to the United States
Senate by a Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. O liver ], with the
request that it be printed as a Senate document, March 13,1912.
(S. Doc. No. 408.)
10. An address by Hon. H e n r y C abot L odge (a United States
Senator from Massachusetts), delivered at Princeton Univer
sity, March 8, 1912, entitled “ The compulsory initiative and
referendum and the recall of judges,” presented to the United
States Senate by a Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. G a l l in g e r ], with the request that it be printed as a Senate docu
ment. (S. Doc. No. 406.)
11. An address by a Senator from Texas [Mr. Bailey] op
posing the initiative and referendum and the recall, delivered
January 2, 1913.
The glaring error of these various arguments against the
principles of popular government I caused to be answered by
one of the clearest thinkers and most patriotic men in tlie
United States, C. F. Taylor, Esq., editor of Equity, Philadel
phia. (S. Doc. No. 651, May S, 1912.)
But these speeches against the principles of popular govern
ment are not the only ones printed as Senate documents and
in the C o n g r e ssio n a l R ecord. The Co n g r e ssio n a l R ecord,
Sixty-second Congress, first session, volume 47, page 3738, con
tains an argument against the initiative, referendum, and re
call, by Clinton W. Howard, introduced into the R ecord by a
Senator from Washington [Mr. J o n e s ].
84132— 11872
1
6
Hon. I I e n b y C abot L odge, a Senator from Massachusetts,
delivered a speech before the Central Labor Union o f Boston,
opposing the right of the people of Massachusetts to express
their opinion on any public policy, which was such a valuable
contribution to political literature that it was printed as a
Senate document. (S. Doc. No. 114, Sixtieth Congress, first ses
sion.)
Hon. James A. Tawney delivered a speech before the Minnesota
Bankers’ Association, June 21, 1911, opposing the initiative,
referendum, and recall, which was so highly approved by Hon.
J o seph G. C a n n o n , formerly Speaker of the House o f Representatives, that he had it put in the C o n g r e ssio n a l R ecord
the first session of this Congress. (C o n g r e ssio n a l R ecord, vol.
47, p. 4231.)
And the non. George W. Wickersham. Attorney General of
the United States, delivered a speech at Syracuse, N. Y., re
peated it at Cleveland, and repeated it again at Princeton, N. J.,
and which was also printed in this Congress as a Senate
document. (S. Doc. No. 20.)
Hon. George W. Wickersham, Attorney General of the United
States, delivered another argument against the initiative, refer
endum, and recall before the law school of Yale, which was
printed in this Congress as a Senate document. (S. Doc. No.
02.)
They are, with only two exceptions, the arguments o f leading
staiulpat Republicans of the most reactionary type. It is the
point of view of the federalist as opposed to the democratic
point of view. (See Federalist Letter No. 10.)
I need not mention other speeches in opposition. These are
sufficient to show who opposes, and to make it easy to ascer
tain what their point of view is. However worded, the argu
ment of all these gentlemen proceeds from a common basis—a
distrust of the people, a lack o f confidence in the capacity of the
people for self-government.
The then Senator from Texas complained in the beginning of
his remarks of the “ unparalleled z e a l” of those who favor the
initiative and referendum, and suggested that “ the men who
are opposed to the initiative and referendum have made no s o
cial effort to combat them.” The various speeches above re
ferred to against popular government shows an extensive propa
ganda against popular government being carried on by the
leaders o f the Republican Party o f the extreme type.
President Taft six years ago traveled 1.G00 miles to make a
set speech against the Initiative and referendum at Oklahoma
City, advising the people of Oklahoma against this “ cumber
some and illogical legislative method” contained in their pro
posed constitution, pointing out the dangers that would ensue
from such “ hasty, irrational, and immoderate ” legislation, and
so forth.
The people o f Oklahoma having considered well the views of
Mr. Taft voted in favor of the initiative and referendum bv
107,000 majority, substantially only the Republican officeholders
and the voters they could influence being against it.
It is an interesting matter to observe that the then Senator
from Texas, in his crusade against the initiative and refer
endum, is found in close working sympathy with the Republican
statesmen above referred to, the followers o f Alexander Hamil84132—11872
7
ton and bis theory of the wisdom of the rule of the few and
of the folly of the rule of the common people (Senator L odge,
Senator B oot, Senator S u t h e r l a n d , President Taft, James A .
Tawney, J o se p h G. C a n n o n , Representative M c C a l l , Nicholas
Murray Butler, W. P. Stafford, C. W. Howard, Attorney General
Wiekersham, Senator O liver , Senator G allin g er , Senator
J o n e s , Senator S m i t h of Michigan).
The then Senator ex
plained that he liat( been called a reactionary.” It is his argu
ments, his public utterances, and his company in the assault
on the initiative and referendum and on popular government
that have doubtless contributed to fix this public estimate of the
Senator.
THE WEIGHT OF POTULAR OPINION FAVORS THE INITIATIVE AND REFER
ENDUM WHEREVER IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.
I call attention to the fact that the State lately represented
by the then Senator—Texas—has just returned his successor—
Mr. M orris S heppard — who was overwhelmingly elected by the
people o f Texas over the opposition of the recent Senator after
Mr. S heppard had made a campaign defending popular govern
ment and the initiative, the referendum, and the recall. So that
the people of Texas have thus approved the principles of the
initiative and referendum, advocated by their present Senator,
and have not been persuaded to the contrary by the eloquence of
his predecessor.
Not only have the people of Texas thus approved the advo
cate of the initiative and referendum [Mr. S h ep p a r d ], but the
great adjacent Commonwealths of Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Mis
souri have placed the initiative and referendum in their consti
tutions. The vote in Mississippi in 1912 was two to one in favor
of the initiative and referendum, but failed of adoption because
of the antiquated provision requiring a majority of all votes
cast in the election; and the advisory vote in Illinois was over
three to one, but a machine jack-pot legislature trampled upon
the direct mandate o f the people. The States o f Washington,
Oregon, California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah. Montana, South
Dakota, Colorado, Nebraska, and even the far eastern State of
Maine. Arkansas, Missouri, and Idaho and the central State of
Ohio, have adopted the initiative and referendum in their consti
tutions. and many other States are on the point of adopting the
initiative and referendum, so that we may speedily expect the
adoption in at least 14 additional States of the initiative and
referendum which President Taft denounced six years ago when
Oklahoma was beginning this great fight for restoring popular
government. When I entered the Senate only Oregon had the
initiative and referendum in good working order, two other
States—Montana and South Dakota—then having adopted it in
a weak form. It has become a nation-wide issue among the
States, aiid we find ourselves even In the United States Senate
face to face with numerous Senate documents containing many
addresses delivered against the principles of direct popular gov
ernment by various Republican leaders—Senator L odge, at
Raleigh; Senator R o o t ; Nicholas Murray IUitler: Congressman
M cC a l l ; Senator S u t h e r l a n d ; President Taft before the Mas
sachusetts Legislature; President Taft at Toledo: Justice Staf
ford, of the District of Columbia, in New York City; Attorney
General Wiekersham; James A. Tawney; Senator L odge at
Princeton.
84132— 11872
I
This great progressive movement for perfecting popular gov
ernment has seized upon the heart of the national Democracy
which has chosen as the next President a man who thoroughly
understands this issue and has thrown himself with enthusiasm
into the leadership o f it.
Ninety per cent o f the Democratic Party membership is
thoroughly progressive. Ten per cent o f the members, perhaps,
may not clearly understand the issue, or some may be still
blinded or misled by private interests, and some may be in
fluenced unconsciously by their attachment to the old game of
machine polities, which is now staggering to its final fall on
American soil. Shallow epithet or thoughtless denunciation
will no longer serve to meet the grave issues presented in this
country for the complete reestablishment o f popular self-gov
ernment.
WHY THE PEOPLE NEED THE INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM.
The people need tlie initiative to pass the laws they do want
and need and which the legislature (especially a machinecontrolled legislature) for any reason fails to pass, and they
need the referendum so as to have the power o f veto over
crooked and corrupt or undesired laws which might be passed by
the legislature (especially a machine-controlled legislature).
Why is it that they do not get the laws they want, and why
is it that they get the laws they do not want?
MACHINE POLITICS OR BOSS RULE.
The answer to this is known to every student of our public
law. -It is due to the evil results o f machine politics, which,
in its worst form, begins with a crooked precinct organization,
controls nominations and ballot boxes and election machinery,
and has contrived to bring about a gross and corrupt miscarriage
o f our “ representative democracy,” wherein nominations are
fraudulently extracted from prearranged conventions, wherein
State officers are nominated by State conventions composed o f
machine politicians thrice refined through the State convention,
the county convention, and the precinct convention or caucus.
Machine party rule is organization, once honorable and legiti
mate, which has fallen into the hands o f machine men, where
the principle o f good government is not the controlling force
but where selfish private ambition or private gain controls.
Under this system, if a governor is to be nominated by one
or the other o f the two lending parties (the process has largely
been the same in either party when the corrupt machine is once
established), the following method is pursued: The State chair
man calls for delegates to a State convention, assigning each
county so many delegates. Thereupon the county chairman calls
for a county convention, consisting o f delegates, assigning to
each precinct one or more delegates, whereupon, the precinct
committeeman (who when the machine actually exists is a petty
precinct boss, a cog in the machine) calls a precinct convention
or caucus to select the delegate or delegates to the county con
vention. Such a precinct boss will call the precinct caucus on
short notice, obscure advertisement, at an inconvenient time
and place, possibly over a saloon, and will pack this little
precinct caucus with his own henchmen and friends by ex
traordinary diligence. He will have prepared on a slip of
paper the delegates he wants elected. He will call the meeting
to order perhaps 10 minutes before the time set, his watch being
81132—11872
9
a little fast, lie will ask if there are any nominations, and one
of his henchmen will nominate the boss himself, perhaps, or
some equally trusted gentleman of the machine, and they will
vote instantly. It will be carried by acclamation and the meet
ing will adjourn sine die, and then and there the governing
power departs from the “ dear people,” never to return. The
MOO votes in the precinct have then and there had their govern
ing power purloined and stolen by the machine. The American
eagle has fallen into the trap o f the machine and is safely
tied down. The county convention—when under machine man
agement—consists of such high-minded patriots, self-selected,
who will nominate the most select of their own class to represent
the citizenship of that county in the State convention, and the
State convention, consisting o f these self-selected rulers by this
highly refining process, will dispose o f the nominations of all
important State ofiices, governors, attorneys general, supreme
court judges, legislators, and so forth and nominate “ hand
picked ” delegates to nominate a presidential candidate m
national convention.
In this State convention these self-selected rulers write the
party platform which binds the State legislature and the State
officials of all classes, from the governor down. The govern
ing business has thus been transferred through the machineorganized precinct from the body of the good citizens, who are
unorganized and unobservant, and who possibly may not sus
pect fraud, into the hands of a band of organized mercenaries.
A national convention based on fraud at the precinct is one
degree worse than a State convention. These self-selected
rulers who have thus by the crafty process of machine politics
succeeded in framing State conventions, county com cut ions, i istrict conventions, etc., and national conventions, and in nomi
nating the officials of the State and Nation and in laying down
the party platform, which means the rule of government, inn
ing nominated their chosen friends for various positions, pro
ceed to elect them by processes even more criminal. To start
with, they stuff the registration lists with dead men and ghosts.
They put down the names of men who do not exist and have
their henchmen arrange strikers to represent these artificial
voters. In Oklahoma City recently there were large numbers
of such false registrations reported. In New lo r k City at one
time they discovered over 30,000 of such false registrations.
In Philadelphia, I am advised, there were disclosed over <0,(X>0
at one time, and only the Lord o f Truth knows how many they
really have had in this Nation. These organized scamps get
charge of the election machinery, they name the State election
board, and the county election boards, the city an(l county
precinct election officials; they have control 0 1 the ballot >o. >>
and of the ballots; they bribe or coerce weak voters; some
times they stuff the boxes; and sometimes, where pub 1
P
ion will not stand for this, they content tbemseives by noting
thousands o f falsely registered names; they arrang
machine tool may vote five times in a preemet unde
ferent names, and then repeat his vote as many
f ,
other names in each of 10 other precincts. /_ Mic
v oter-ca lle d a repeater— deserves to be rewarded " th pub
employment and usually is rewarded bj teiug given som
political preferment in a small way, sometimes
- 1 - b
paid so much money for his services and by an occasional job.
84132— 11872
The machine may control the police, and at the ballot boxes
they can see to it that no interference with their plans is per
mitted. They also control sometimes the judges of the courts,
who will accord “ a fair hearing” to any scamp that belongs
to the machine and shield him from lawful punishment. There
are found sufficient technical reasons why these scoundrels
never get inside of the jails. It is not enough to stuff the
ballot boxes in this w a y ; these officers of election can also
deface and count out the ballots o f citizens who are “ against
the machine.” They can, under their rules o f management,
throw out a precinct or a whole county where the better ele
ment prevails for fictitious reasons, deliberately devised by
this system of organized rascality. So that, even where an
honest majority might, in spite of all pitfalls, be found, the
machine, through the process o f thus fraudulently nominating
and fraudulently electing candidates, can overthrow the ma
jority and retain possession o f the governing business. Patri
otic men have discovered these evil elements to be in control
of the governing powers of the States in greater or lesser degree,
and that the machine and its agents and representatives have
become the allies and the agents of organized greed and cor
rupt selfishness, until in some States and cities the whole sys
tem of government has become so despicable that the best citi
zens of the State, in despair, absent themselves from the polls
and take little or no interest in public affairs, on the ground
that politics is a “ dirty business.” Honest citizens justly com
plain of the corrupt alliance between the political party ma
chine— often bipartisan, as in New York, Illinois, and Pennsyl
vania—and the corrupt corporations, which deliberately en
gaged in swindling the people out of vast property rights by
granting privileges and properties that belong to the people
without fair consideration. What is even worse, this evil sys
tem has not only given the people no relief against the organ
ized monopoly that has slowly absorbed nearly all of the oppor
tunities of life and are oppressing the people beyond reason in
a mad race for wealth accumulation, but has tremendously con
tributed to the establishment o f monopoly by legislative favor
and by executive immunity. Congress itself has exemplified
this system and until recently had not given relief which the
people had a right to ask, although the political parties had
been promising the people relief for years.
Those who have opposed enlarging the direct power of the
people, led by President Taft, loudly proclaimed in the cam
paign of 1908, in answer to the Democratic demand for the
“ people’s rule,” that the people did rule through the Repuhliean
Party, and that those who claimed that the people were not rul
ing were merely agitators and demagogues.
The great progressive party of the country, the Democratic
Party, raised this issue of direct legislation and declared in
favor o f it in the national platform of 1900. They demanded
the direct election o f Senators; they demanded the publicity of
campaign contributions; they demanded an end to corrupt prac
tices; and they demanded “ the people’s ru le” in terms most
emphatic in the platform of 1908. denouncing the graft and imv
litical corruption traced to the representatives of predatory
wealth, the debauchery of elections, and declaring *•the rule o f
the people” to be “ the overwhelming issue."
84132— 11S72
11
The people realized in 1900, when the Republican Party lead
ers passed the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act, that the Republican
leaders did not represent the people but represented privilege
and private interests. It was obvious from their conduct that
the people did not really rule the country, but that organized
plutocracy was in control. In an address to the Senate before
the campaign of 1910 on the 2Sth day of May, 1910. I called the
attention of the country to the fact that the people did not really
rule in Congress; that the people had been promised many
things for years by the party in power and had been continually
disappointed. I pointed out then many things which the people
justly desired and had prayed for in vain.
That they had urgently desired—
The control of monopoly.
Lower prices on the necessaries of life and on manufactured
goods.
Lower railroad rates. Lower passenger rates.
Physical valuation of railroads and o f telegraph and tele
phone and industrial corporations.
Reciprocity with other nations.
An act preventing corrupt practices in governmental proc
esses.
A sweeping control of improper campaign contributions.
An end of gambling in agricultural products, cotton, and
foodstuffs.
The abatement of the gigantic stock and bond gambling estab
lishment in Wall Street.
An end to overcapitalization o f stocks and bonds.
An end to unfair railway discriminations.
The development of good roads.
The legitimate development o f national waterways.
An income tax.
A progressive inheritance tax.
An employers’ liability act.
An act providing adequate workmen's compensation.
A minimum wage fo r women.
An. eight-hour labor day.
Fair treatment for child labor.
Fair prices for their crude products.
The right both to buy and to sell on a competitive market.
All these things the people had sought and bad not received
because they did not really rule through the Republican Party.
RELIEF I S ABOUT TO COME THROtJOH THE PROGRESSIVE BEMOCKATIC
PARTY.
The demand for the people's rule became the battle cry of the
Democracy in 1908, and in 3910 the people captured the House
o f Representatives through the Democratic Party and immedi
ately undertook the fulfillment of these promises for a better
government by overthrowing Cannonism and by passing numer
ous acts reducing the tariff, all vetoed by Mr. Taft.
The Democratic Party made good in 1931 and 1912, and in the
campaign of 1912 they took further advanced ground toward
purifying the processes o f government and establishing the rule
of the people in the following magnificent declaration:
Wo direct attention to the fact that the Democratic Party s demand
for a return to the rule of the people, erpressed in the national plat
form four pears ago, has now become the accepted doctrine o f a large
841 3 2 — 11872
tom.
m ajority of the electors. W e again remind the country that only by a
larger exercise of the reserved power of the people can they protect
themselves from the misuse of delegated power and the usurpation of
governmental instrumentality by special interests. For this reason
the national convention insisted on the overthrow of Cannonism and the
inauguration of a sys;em by which United States Senators could be
elected by direct vote. The Democratic Party offers itself to the country
as an agency through which the complete overthrow and extirpation of
corruption, fraud, and machine rule in American politics can be effected.
They went further; they provided for a preferential ballot for
presidential candidates in 1916 by a primary and for election
likewise of members o f the Democratic national committee, who
should immediately take their places and put an eud 'to the
machine management of the Democratic national committee in
the following language:
W e direct that the national committee incorporate in the call for the
next nominating convention a requirement that all expressions of prefer
ence for presidential candidates shall be given and the selection of
delegates and alternates made through a primary election conducted by
the party organization in each State where such expression and election
are not provided for by State law. Committeemen who are hereafter
to constitute the membership of the Democratic national committee and
whose election is not provided for by law shall be chosen in each State
at such primary elections, and the service and authority o f the com
mitteemen, however chosen, shall begin immediately upon the receipt
of their credentials, respectively.
They did more. They pledged an end to abuse of money in
elections by publicity and by limiting individual contributions in
the following plank :
W e pledge the Democratic Tarty to the enactment of a law prohibit
ing any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund and any
individual from contributing any amount above a reasonable nuuimum.
They went further to break up machine rule by proposing to
put an end to the abuse of patronage by a President in renomi
nating himself in the following plank:
W e favor a single presidential term, and to that end urge the adoption
of an amendment to the Constitution nakiug the President of the
United States ineligible for rceleetion, and we pledge the candidate
of this convention to this principle.
They declared for the control by the people of the United
States Senate by the direct election o f Senators.
The Democratic Congress o f 1910 and 1912 was a Congress of
magnificent accomplishment, overthrowing Cannonism. passing
acts to lower taxes, providing the direct election o f Senators,
admitting progressive Arizona and giving New Mexico an
amendable constitution, limiting the election expenses o f Sen
ators and Representatives, passing a bill to prevent the abuse of
Injunction, passing a bill giving an eight-hour day for workmen,
and so forth.
The Democratic Party in its platform of 1912 promised the
people the relief which they have all these years hoped for—
tariff reform, control of the trusts, lowering the cost of living,
physical valuation o f railroads, express companies, telegraph
and telephone lines, proper banking legislation, development o f
waterways and roads, declaring in favor o f conserving the propery of the people, the protection of the rights o f labor, to estab
lish a Department of Labor, to establish an independent public
health service, to establish the parcel post (now the law ), and
to reform the administration o f the civil and criminal law.
The tremendous effect of the sound, honest, wise Democratic
doctrine has been felt in the Senate itself, whose character and
841 3 2 — 1187a
I
13
point of view on next week—March 4, 1913—will be far removed
from the point of view of the Aldrich regime of six years ago.
Mr. President, the people are going to rule through the pro
gressive Democratic Party, which has pledged itself as an
agency through tchich they can really enforce the matured
public opinion of the country.
The progressive policies of the Democratic Party mean the
absolute overthrow of the political machine, and I rejoice in
the declaration of the noble platform that—
The Democratic Party offers itself to the country as an agency
through which the complete overthrow and extirpation of corruption,
fraud, and machine rule in American politics can be effected.
And I remind my fellow Senators that the initiative and the
referendum and the recall comprise the quickest, most direct,
adequate available means by which to put an end to corrupt
machine politics in the Nation and to overthrow the baleful intluence of the machine.
The ideals o f the machine are low. The notion o f the ma
chine politician is to get a job at governmental expense for him
self and his cronies; perhaps to make money out o f the govern
ing business by selling privileges to those who wish to buy at
the expense of the people— it may be the selling o f municipal
contracts; it may be selling franchises; it may"be selling im
munity from the law intended to control vice and criminal
conduct; it may be the blackmailing o f legitimate business
through a jack-pot legislature, or the withholding, until paid
for, the statutes required by the people. There are numerous
degrees of the machine, from the comparatively harmless to that
which is utterly corrupt and criminal.
There are many perfectly honest men, however, who stand by
n party organization as a matter of party loyalty, not realizing
when legitimate organization becomes illegitimate organization;
when honest party organization becomes a dishonest organiza
tion unworthy the support of good men, when their party man
agement falls into the hands of a selfish or corrupt machine.
This mischief-breeding system has grown from the convention
system, as established in 1832, which developed into the danger
ous machine-rule system in 1844, against which Benton and Cal
houn made their great protests. They forecasted what has hap
pened, and we are now trying to undo the harm which was then
begun, and which in recent years has reached such an evil emi
nence. It is against the bad practices and evil results of ma
chine government that thoughtful citizens have determined to
promote the initiative and referendum. In 1902, by the vigorous
questioning of candidates by nonpartisan organizations, a wedge
was forced into the iron-clad panoply o f the two great political
parties, in both of which the machine existed in greater or
less degree, and in this way an opening was made for the
establishment of the greatest o f all of the agencies for enforcing
“ representative democracy.” We had the form of a repre
sentative democracy—we did not have its substance for the
reason that in many cases the representatives in State legis
latures and in Congress and in executive and judicial offices,
owing their elections to the machine, and the political machine
having a good working agreement with the corrupt commercial
and financial interests, prevented the representatives of the
people really representing the people and had them in fact
84132— 11872
I
representing the special interests as against the general in
terest.
The people need the initiative and referendum as the quickest
means by which they can conveniently overthrow the corrupt
political machines in the United States. By the initiative the
people can pass any law they do want, and by the referendum
they can veto any law they do not want, and this is a deadly
peril to the machine and to the “ representative ” who is really
a representative o f corrupt special interests, while it is a shield
and buckler to the "representative” who really at heart repre
sents the people. A good representative is glad to have,any bill
which he passes referred to the people, and he is glad to have
the people initiate any bill Avhich they really desire.
W h a t is t h e I n it ia t iv e and R efer en d u m ?
THE INITIATIVE.
In its ordinary meaning it is this: The initiative means the
right of the people, under forms prescribed by law. to initiate
any law they want and to whch they can get a sufficient num
ber of thousands of citizens to attach their signatures on petilions, to be submitted by the secretary of state at the next regu
lar election to the voters o f the State for their adoption or re
jection. It is very troublesome to get up an initiated petition.
It is expensive. It is only done by those who are moved by a
powerful interest and who believe that their proposal would
meet the approval o f the majority of the citizens of the State.
The initiative permits a certain number of thousands of voters
to make a motion before all of the citizens of the State, which
shall be voted on, just as one man in a mass meeting can make a
motion and have it voted on, or as one member o f a legislative
assembly can make a motion that a certain bill which lie drafts
shall be voted on. But the initiative by the people before it
can be moved must have thousands o f i>eople say that they want
it voted on by signing a petition to that effect. It takes over
18,000 voters in Oklahoma to initiate a bill. It gives the peo
ple an opportunity to pass any law they do want in this way
when their legislature for any reason— particularly for the
reason that the legislature is controlled by a crooked bipartisan
political machine— refuses to pass laws which are of funda
mental importance, such as a thoroughgoing corrupt practices
prevention act. Oregon could never get a corrupt practices
prevention act that was efficient until Oregon had the initiative
and referendum, because the organized rascality of that State
was in control o f the legislature and would not permit it to
be done. They could not get a proper direct primary nor other
needed statutes.
THE REFERENDUM.
It is merely this: That the people, within 90 days after an
objectionable act is passed, may in like manner sign a petition
by a certain number of thousands of voters requesting that the
particular objectionable act passed by the legislature which the
petitioners believe injurious to the people shall be suspended in
its operation until the next regular election, at which time the
people shall have the right either to confirm or reject such
statute so passed by the legislature. Usually 8 per cent o f the
voters can initiate a bill they want, and 5 per cent of the voters
can have a referendum. A better system would be to require a
fixed number o f qualified voters, as 10,00). or 15,000, or 50.000,
84132— 11872
15
as in Maine. This fixes a definite standard and more clearly
visualizes to the public the size and dignity o f the demand for
a proposed measure before it can be submitted to the whole
people.
THE INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM AND THE MACHINE.
The initiative and referendum, as I have said, is a deadly
enemy to the machine. The machine can only retain its power
power by preventing the passage of a corrupt practices preven
tion act, by preventing honest election laws, and preventing the
establishing of honest election machinery. The organized ras
cality of the machine will always be found in the way of a
thorough-going corrupt practices prevention act and will always
be found opposed to perfecting the election machinery.
This is why in New York the bipartisan machine, led by ma
chine politicians on the Democratic side, and by machine poli
ticians on the Republican side, defeated a primary law. This
is why proper laws controlling corrupt practices and perfecting
the election machinery so as to make it absolutely honest have
not been passed in New York, in Pennsylvania, and in numerous
other States, and this is why the people of California adopted
the initiative and referendum and the recall; this is why Oregon
adopted i t ; this is why Oklahoma adopted it, and this is why so
large a number of States have adopted the initiative and refer
endum, and why so many others are about to adopt it, and this
is the reason why it is going to be adopted in every single one
of the 48 States o f this Union.
And no amount of political sophistry is going to stop the
American people from adopting the means by progressive meas
ures for putting an end to organized misconduct in the govern
ing business in the United States.
The American people know what the trouble is, and the great
English ambassador, James Bryce, in the American Commonwealthi photographed it for their information under the head
ings “ The machine,” “ Rings and bosses,” “ Spoils, etc.,” in
1888. (American Commonwealth, Vol. II, pp. 51-141, ed. 18S8.)
Public opinion has not been hasty, but has moved slowly, very
slowly, too slowly.
Why, Jlr. President, even the control of corrupt practices in
the nomination and election of the President of the United States
and in electing Senators and Members o f Congress has never
been properly passed. The law on the publicity of campaign
contributions, the law which we have passed, is grossly defec
tive, requiring no publicity of certain individual contributions, no
publicity of any committee spending money wholesale on national
elections, except where that committee is confessedly in charge
of two or more States, and there is no machinery for making
effective publicity of campaign contributions. The reason is
that the power o f the machine has been so great in the House
and in the Senate that the perfecting o f this law has appeared
to be impossible. The American people are going to end it by
putting their hands on the governing business with power and
with direct authority through the initiative, the referendum, and
the recall. These statutes open the door for the passage ol
corrupt practices prevention acts and for the recalling of un
faithful representatives.
By the initiative and referendum we can pass the Australian
ballot, which being a secret ballot prevents the financial ana
8 4 1 3 2 — 1 1 872
I
commercial bullies of the country coercing: the suffrage of the
poor citizens whose bread and butter these bullies control.
By the initiative and referendum we can pass a mandatory
primary laic in spite o f the legislature controlled by the ma
chine, and in this way can permit the citizens to nominate their
proposed representatives and take the nomination of public
officials out of the hands of the convention system, out of the
machine, out o f the hands o f organized rascality.
By the initiative and referendum we can pass a thorough
going corrupt practices prevention act that will destroy machine
politics and corrupt practices in this Republic, and will drive
out of public life machine-picked candidates, who are the allies
and often the agents of monopoly and o f the corrupt commercial
and financial interests, who have not hesitated to use money on
a gigantic scale. We have had in recent years overwhelming
evidence of this.
By the initiative and referendum a new era of pure and up
right government will be introduced into the United States
and iuto the States o f the Union in which the welfare o f men.
o f women, and poor children will be the great motive force of
law making and of law executing, and an end will be put to
the use of legislative and executive power for the purpose of
promoting merely the financial and commercial power of organ
ized greed.
By the initiative and referendum we can promote organized
righteousness in government and overthrow organized corruption.
By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the cor
rupt convention system and establish the rule of the intelligence
and conscience o f the majority of our citizens.
By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow organized
selfishness and establish organized altruism.
By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the liquor
traffic in the United States and establish sobriety and temper
ance and providem e in this Republic.
By the initiative and referendum we can overthrow the Patent
Medicine Trust and establish a department of health that will
save hundreds o f thousands of citizens annually from prevent
able diseases and death.
By the initiative and referendum we can establish the rights
of the weak, of poor feeble men, of women, and of children
who can not stand up against the grinding conditions established
in this Republic and brought about by the combination of
machine politics and organized corrupt selfishness.
It is no wonder that 4,000,000 voters broke away from all
party ties and followed Theodore Roosevelt when he threw him
self at the head o f this vital demand for righteousness and effi
ciency in government. It is no wonder that Woodrow Wilson,
having for years questioned the practicability o f the initiative
and referendum, changed his mind about it and threw himself
on the right side of this vital question and is now a great ex
ponent o f this doctrine and the head of a party which thoroughly
believes in it.
This noble doctrine o f the democracy has won over millions
of good citizens heretofore affiliated with other parties and led
directly to the organization of the Progressive Party, so called.
The Democratic Party has long been the more progressive
party of the Nation, even if it has had its efficiency impaired by
84132—11872
it
corrupt machine politics in some of the States. I t has been
demanding the direct election of Senators for mauy years. I t
has violently opposed the corrupt use of money and the coercion
of voters by commercial and financial interests, and has been
opposing the trusts for many, many years. The Democratic
Party declared itself boldly and strongly in favor o f “ direct
legislation” in its platform of 1900 in the following language:
W e favor direct legislation wherever practicable.
This means the initiative and referendum. And in its great
platform of 1908 was the following noble declaration of pro
gressive principles: '
We rejoice at the increasing signs of an awakening throughout the
country.
I h e various investigations have traced graft and political
corruption to the representatives of predatory wealth, and laid bare
the unscrupulous methods by which they have debauched elections and
preyed upon a defenseless public through the subservient officials whom
they have raised to place and power.
The conscience of the Nation is now aroused and will free the Govern
ment from the grip of those who have made it a business asset of the
favor-seeking corporations.
It must become again a people’s Govern
ment, and he administered in alt departments according to the Jeffer
sonian maxim— “ equal rights to all ; special privileges to none.”
“ Hhall the people r u le ? ” is the overwhelming issue which manifests
itself in all the questions now under discussion.
The* people can only rule by having the right of direct legis
lation which they may exercise at their option. They do not
wish to exercise this right except in important case's. They
prefer their representatives to make, judge, and execute the
law. It is only when their representatives fail to represent
the people that the people would care to exercise direct power.
By arranging that the people may exercise direct power at their
option, the representatives would make it unnecessary for the
people to exercise this power, because the big stick of public
opinion, being available through the initiative and referendum
and recall, the legislator, the judge, the administrative officer
will represent matured public opinion to the best o f his lim
ited understanding, and generally in a satisfactory manner.
Onr President elect, Woodrow Wilson, although at one time
regarding the initiative and referendum as unnecessary and
unsuitable, came to change bis mind substantially about it for
the same reason that other thoughtful men changed their
minds, and are daily changing their minds, on this great ques
tion ; and that is, for the reason that you can not get the eco
nomic and humane reforms desired for the welfare of the race
until you overthrow the machine and establish righteous and
responsive government by giving ihe people a mechanism
through which the public conscience and public intelligence can
act. On August 2G, 1911, in the Outlook, Gov. Wilson said:
I'or 15 years I -taught my classes that the Initiative and referendum
wouldn’ t work. I can prove it n o w ; hut the trouble is they do. * * *
flack o f all other reform s lies the means of getting it. Back of the
question, W hat do we w ant? is the question. How are we going to get
it ?
The immediate thing tcc have got to do is to resume popular gov
ernment.
* *
* \Ve are cleaning house, and in order to clean house
the one thing we need is a good broom. The initiative and referendum
are good brooms.
And Theodore Roosevelt, before the Ohio constitutional con
vention on April 21, 1912, said:
I believe in the initiative and referendum, which should he used not
to destroy representative government, but to correct it whenever it
becomes misrepresentative.
8 4 1 3 2 — 1 1 8 7 2 -------- 2
18
United States Senator R obert M. L a F ollette , of Wisconsin,
has said:
In my judgment the public Interests would be promoted If a majority
of the voters possessed the option of directing by ballot the action of
their representatives on any important issue, under proper regulations,
insuring full discussion and mature consideration upon such issue by
the voters prior to balloting thereon.
United States Senator Jonathan Bourne, o f Oregon, has said:
The initiative and referendum is the keystone of the arch of popular
government, for by means of this the people may accomplish such other
reforms as they desire. The initiative develops the electorate, because
it encourages study of principles and policies of government and affords
the originator of new ideas in government an opportunity to secure
popular judgment upon his measures. The referendum prevents misuse
of the power temporarily centralized in the legislature.
United States Senator M oses E. C l a p p , in San Francisco in
1911, said:
The initiative and referendum I regard as more than monitorial. If
the American people are going to make a success of free government,
they have got to take an interest in government. These measures are
a thousand times more valuable as an educational and inspirational
force, great as their monitorial valu<» may be. They open an avenue to
the voter, so that he does not have to ask any political boss permission
to air his views.
Gov. Jolm F. Shafroth, about to enter the Senate as the Sen
ator from Colorado, said:
The initiative and referendum places the Government nearer to the
people, and that has always been the" aim of the framers of all repub
lican forms of government.
Gov. Hiram W. Johnson, o f California, the recent candidate
for Vice President of the United States, and who received over
4,000,000 votes, said in his inaugural address before the Cali
fornia Legislature:
I commend to you the proposition that after all the initiative and
referendum depend upon our confidence in the people and their ability
to govern. The opponents of direct legislation ana the recall, however
they may phrase their opposition, in reality believe the people can not
be trusted. * * * W e who espouse these measures do so because of
our deep-rooted belief * * • not only jn the right o f the people to
govern but in their ability to govern.
Judge Ben B. Lindsay, of Denver, recently said in the Toledo
News-Bee:
It Is hard for me to understand how anyone familiar with the
methods of the great privileged interests of the country in controlling
courts and legislatures could fail to be an enthusiastic supporter of
the initiative and referendum.
Prof. Franklin H. Giddings, of Columbia L'nivcrsity. in an
address before the City Club of Philadelphia on March 23, 3912,
said :
I believe that the people of the United States are changing their form
of government somewhat by introducing such new measures as the
referendum, the initiative, the recall, and the direct primarv, in part
because their interests have become largely new, in part because of
real restiveness under existing conditions, but in part also because, to
an extent never before seen In our history, the people are now thinking
about things, whereas during a great part of our political history they
have thought not about things but only about candidates.
And Dr. Charles A. Beard, associate professor of politics in
Columbia University, said:
* *
* anxiety for the preservation of representative Institutions
need not lead anyone into the extreme view that the initiative and
referendum are Incompatible with them.
They do not destroy repre
sentative government, neither is there any indication, nor anything in
the nature of things, showing that they can destroy such government.
84132— 11872
BSS
19
Switzerland has this system in excellent working order, ant?
many of our American States have adopted it for the reasons
which I have briefly suggested.
AX ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SENATE RESOLUTION 413.
Mr. President, I shall now directly answer the proposals of
Senate resolution 413, that the initiative and referendum as
established or proposed in the American States is in conflict with
the representative principle on which this Republic was founded
and would work a radical change in the character of our Gov
ernment.
The argument made by the then Senator from Texas on this
point is that the language used by certain “ representative”
citizens in the Constitutional Convention o f 1787 would argue
that they thought the Government o f the United States was
intended to be “ a representative democracy ” and not a mon
archy, an aristocracy, or a “ pure democracy.”
Conceding that these gentlemen made the illuminating remarks
attributed to them, after all, what they said is immaterial and
irrelevant.
The remarks of Charles Pinckney, or Madison, or Hamilton,
or of Fisher Ames, or of Ellsworth, or of Pendleton, in secret
convention or elsewhere, are unimportant in the presence of
the actual history and constitutions o f the 48 States, even if any
accidental phrase or opinion emanating from any o f these excel
lent gentlemen had relevancy, which they have not.
Some of these men suggested the importance of people in
thickly settled communities delegating to representatives their
governing powers as a matter of necessary convenience, and the
wisdom o f this observation no man disputes. Some of them
pointed out that a “ pure democracy” was not practicable or
wise in a country such as ours, and to this proposal no advo
cate of the optional initiative and referendum, which is the
only form proposed in America, takes issue.
Mr. Lodge has the precaution upon further study of this
question to discuss the “ compulsory initiative and referendum ”
(at Princton, March 8, 1912), which is not an issue in the United
States, and he thereb5 r practically concedes that he has no
adequate argument against the optional “ initiative and refer
endum,” the only form suggested in this country.
The compulsory initiative and referendum would mean that
the people would be compelled to pass on every law. which is
not suggested by anyone as suitable in a Republic of 90.000.000
people. Mr. Lodge’s escape through the “ compulsory d o o r” is
ludicrous and a humorous side light on his estimate o f the igno
rance of his Princeton audience.
Even if Madison and Pinckney and Hamilton had known
what the modern initiative and referendum is and had opposed
it in specific terms, their opinions would be of no importance.
We might as well go back to 1787, a hundred and twenty-five
years, and have them tell us how to devise a telegraph system,
or to invent a telephone system, or to send messages 3.000 miles
through the air without wires, or to run railway trains at 60
miles the hour, or to construct a Mauretania for the high seas.
These innocent old gentlemen would fall dead with astonish
ment if they could see the conditions of modern life. They are
not qualified to instruct us in statecraft.
81132— 11872
The then Senator from Texas makes a crafty appeal to the
sense of reverence which all men have for their ancestors, and
then tries to argue that our ancestors were opposed to the
initiative and referendum. The answer to all this is that our
ancestors did not have the slightest idea what the modern op
tional initiative and referendum is; in the second place, our
ancestors expressed no opposition to the modern optional initia
tive and referendum; and, in the third place, our ancestors had
no conception of how a representative democracy could fall into
the control of organized greed through the use of a political
machine. They never considered the possibility of such a thing,
and if they were to have the present facts before them they
would probably support unanimously the initiative and referen
dum in order to perfect the representative system.
These ancestral statesmen, who met together in the seclusion
of closed doors to discuss the framing of a Federal Constitution,
were men as a rule o f strongly reactionary sentiment. Twothirds of them were quite thoroughly undemocratic; such lead
ing Democrats as Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Patrick
Henry, et al., were conspicuous by their absence. The debates
were behind closed doors, in secret conclave, no member allowed
to report or copy any of its proceedings, which were kept pro
foundly a secret for 50 years, until all the actors were dead.
No wonder this profound secrecy was demanded and observed,
for the 05 members of this convention tccrc not authorized to
draft a constitution, but merely to propose amendments to the
Articles of Confederation, and in drafting the Constitution they
were guilty of usurpation of political power.
The undemocratic character of the men who got into this
constitutional convention is demonstrated by numerous secret
speeches made by them when in that convention, and which they
believed would never be known by the people.
Elbridge Gerry, for example, declared—
that democracy was the worst of all political evils.
vol. 5, p. 5 57.)
(E lliott's Debates,
Edmund Randolph observed, in tracing the political evils of
this country to their origin, ‘'th at every man (in convention)
had found :t in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
Hamilton urged a permanent Senate “ to check the impru
dence o f democracy.”
Madison thought the Constitution “ ought to secure the per
manent interests of the country against innovation.” (Elliott's
Debates, vol. 1, p. 450.)
And Madison, in the Federalist, warned the people against
“ the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
And these distinguished gentlemen from whom the then Sen
ator from Texas quotes with such gusto made a Constitution
practically unamendahte by the people, and failed to put into
the Constitution a bill o f rights and the fundamental principles
o f liberty contained in the Declaration of Independence.
James Allen Smith, professor of political science, University
o f Washington, well says:
From all evidence that we have, the conclusion is irresistible that
they sought to establish a form of government which would effectually
curb and restrain democracy. They engrafted upon the Constitution so
much of the features of popular government as was, iu their opinion
suiHcient to insure its adoption.
84132— 11S72
21
And James Bryce makes a similar comment on tlieir work.
In speaking of checks and balances devised in the Federal
Constitution Mr. Bryce says:
Those who invented this machinery of checks and talances were
anxious not so much to develop public opinion as to resist and build
up brick walls against it.
*
*
* " The prevalent conception of pop
ular opinion was that it was aggressive, revolutionary, unreasoning,
passionate, futile, and a breeder of mob violence."
(American Com
monwealth, Morris ed., 190G, p. 2G0.)
The convention o f July 4. 1770, and the Declaration of Inde
pendence was thoroughly democratic. The Constitution of the
United States, drawn by the reactionaries 11 years afterwards,
was thoroughly undemocratic in numerous particulars, to some
of which I shall call attention.
There were only 65 members of this secret convention; only
55 members attended and only 3D members signed it, and they
were nearly all reactionaries.
The Constitution they submitted was undemocratic in the fol
lowing particulars:
First. The Constitution permitted a life President.
Second. The Constitution did not provide for the nomination
or election of the President by the people, but by electors far
removed from the people.
Third. The Constitution did not provide for the nomination
or election of Senators by the people.
Fourth. The Constitution provided for an uncontrolled judi
ciary (by possible interpretation), in striking contrast to the
laws of every State in the Union, including Utah.
Fifth. A minority of the House (34 per cent) can prevent the
majority proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A
minority of the Senate (34 per cent) can prevent the majority
proposing an amendment to the Constitution. A President can
prevent a majority of both Houses proposing an amendment to
the Constitution. A small minority of the States (26 per cent)
can prevent the amendment of the Constitution.
Sixth. No provision for the adoption of the Constitution was
arranged by popular vote.
And some of the delegates who approved the Constitution from
Virginia at least disobeyed the instructions of the people.
Seventh. The Constitutional Convention usurped the power in
framing the Constitution.
They were only authorized to prepare amendments to the
Articles of Confederation, not frame a new Constitution.
Eighth. The Constitution did not protect the right of free
speech.
Ninth. The Constitution did not protect the right of free
religion.
Tenth. It did not protect the freedom o f the press.
Eleventh. It did not protect the right of the people to peace
ably assemble.
Twelfth. It did not protect the right of the people to petition
the Government for the righting o f grievances.
Thirteenth. It did not protect the right of the States to have
troops.
Fourteenth. It did not protect the right o f the people to keep
and bear arms.
Fifteenth. It did not protect the people against the quartering
of soldiers upon them without their consent.
84132— 11872
Sixteenth. It did not protect the right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against un
reasonable searches and seizures nor against warrants, except
upon suitable safeguards.
Seventeenth. It did not protect the people against being held
for crime, except on indictment.
Eighteenth. It did not protect the people against a second
trial for the same offense.
Nineteenth. It did not protect an accused against being com
pelled to be a witness against himself.
Twentieth. It did not protect the citizen against being de
prived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Twenty-first. It did not protect private property being taken
for public use without just compensation.
Twenty-second. It did not secure, in criminal prosecutions,
the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in
the place where the crime was committed.
Twenty-third. It did not protect the accused in the right to
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, o f the
right to be confronted with the witnesses against him. o f the
right to have compulsory processes in obtaining witnesses in his
favor, and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.
Twenty-fourth. It did not protect the right o f the citizen in
common-law suits to a trial by jury.
Twenty-fifth. It did not protect the citizen against excessive
bail, against excessive fines, nor against cruel and unusual
punishments.
Twenty-sixth. It did not safeguard the rights reserved by the
people against invasion by the Federal Government.
Twenty-seventh. The Constitution is undemocratic in making
no provision for its subsequent amendment by direct popular
vote, although this was the method of the various States.
The ratification of this undemocratic Constitution was only
obtained with the greatest difficulty, and in no States was it
submitted to the people themselves for a direct vote.
Massachusetts, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia,
and New York demanded amendments; North Carolina and
Rhode Island at first rejected the Constitution, and except for
the agreement to adopt the first 10 amendments and make it
more democratic, it would have assuredly failed.
George Washington, as president o f the convention, was de
barred from sharing in the debates. The Constitution had one
very great merit, it established the Union; it had one very
great demerit, it was grossly undemocratic. But it was not as
undemocratic as some modern statesmen would make it appear.
For instance, it did not formally prevent the recall o f judges,
but provided that judges should hold office “ during good be
havior,” and placed the entire executive power in the hands of
a President, and the legislative power in the hands o f Congress,
both of whom, in my judgment, have the power of removing anv
Federal judge upon the ground of a high crime and misde
meanor or for any bad behavior and without impeachment.
It was not so undemocratic as to deny the right o f direct
taxation o f private citizens by an income tax. although the
Supreme Court of the United States so misinterpreted the Con
stitution.
84132— 11872
23
Tlio Constitution says:
No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion
to the census or enumeration hereinbefore directed to be taken.
The enumeration referred to is as follows:
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
several States which may be included within this Union according to
their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
whole number free persons, including those bound to service for a term
o f years, and excluding Indians, not taxed, three-fifths of all persons.
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the
first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and then every sub
sequent term of 10 vears in such manner as they shall by law direct.
The inhibition o f a direct tax by the clause above referred to
relates alone to a direct tax on a sovereign State.
I have heretofore fully shown this by its history, by the Con
stitutional Convention debates, and by the other parts of the
Constitution and its interpretation by all departments of Gov
ernment.
If this clause o f the Constitution were written out in full, it
would read :
No capitation tax against a sovereign State or other direct tax against
a sovereign State shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or
enumeration of the population of such States hereinbefore directed to
be taken.
The Supreme Court of the United States, misled by fallacious
arguments, interpreted this clause so as to make it read:
No capitation tax against a sovereign State or other direct tax
against a private citizen shall be laid unless in proportion to the census
or enumeration of the population of the States hereinbefore directed to
be taken.
And on this interpretation held that an income tax, being a
direct tax on a citizen, was inhibited by this clause of the Con
stitution.
Such an interpretation of above clause of the Constitution is
incongruous and absurd. It is incongruous to interpret the
clause to jump from a State to the citizen as its subject. It is
absurd to say the clause intended to forbid a direct tax on a
private citizen unless in proportion to the census. The United
States has always directly taxed its citizens and does so now,
so that this interpretation by the Supreme Court is in direct
conflict with the historical and as yet unbroken interpretation
of the Constitution. The Constitution of the United States,
while undemocratic, was not as undemocratic as this.
We do not need to be advised by the undemocratic Alexander
Hamilton, nor by the undemocratic members in this secret con
clave o f 1787, as to the true principles of democracy. These
principles are abundantly set forth in the Declaration of Inde
pendence and in the constitutions o f the 48 States, and show
beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the people of the vari
ous States intended to preserve their liberties by retaining in
their own hands the sovereign powers of government, and this
is abundantly shown by the plain words of the Declaration of
Independence and of the constitutions o f the 43 States.
The then Senator from Texas lays great stress upon the
opinions o f several of the reactionaries in the secret conclave
of 1787, in which 39 “ unauthorized ” delegates, selected by the
legislatures before a constitutional convention was suggested,
framed a constitution that still ties the hands and interferes
8 4 1 3 2 — 118712
•with the liberty of 90,000,000 of human beings to freely govern
themselves.
In point of fact there were about 3,000,000 people in America
at that time outside of the secret conclave at Philadelphia,
where certain “ representatives ” were embezzling power “ for
the good o f the people.”
These 3,000,000 people outside o f the little Constitutional Con
vention at Philadelphia had some very sound opinions on human
liberty and on freedom. These wore the people who fought the
war with Great Britain and established their independence and
who proposed to keep it by not setting up any rulers over them
selves or any laws over themselves which they could not at any
time amend, alter, or abolish. The people of the United Colo
nics were all right and were believers in popular government
and practiced it. and wrote it in their constitutions. Alexander
Hamilton and some other reactionaries sympathizing with him
were fundamental Tories and at heart opposed to popular
government.
The principle on icliich this Republic teas founded icas not the
representative principle (an incident o f the people's basic
power), but was the principle of popular sovereignty, the prin
ciple that all power was vested in the people by an inalienable
right, indefeasible, and that the people had the right at any
time to exercise this sovereign power.
The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States
o f America, issued July 4, 1776, sa id :
W e hold these truths to he self-evident; that all men are created
e q u a l; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rig h ts; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
T hat to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,
deriving their ju st powers from the consent of the governed; that when
ever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new govern
ment, laving its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers
in such form as to them shall seem most likely
lik
to effect their safety and
happiness.
This declaration is a declaration in effect that all powers of
government emanate directly from the people. And this right
is reiterated in the constitution of almost every State in the
Union, declaring in various forms that all powers o f govern
ment Spring directly from the people. For example:
1819: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and all
free governments are founded on their authority and instituted
for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an inalien
able and indefeasible right to alter, reform, or abolish their form
of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.”
ARKANSAS.
1836: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness. For the advancement of
these ends they have, at all times, an unqualified right to alter,
reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may
think proper.”
C A L IF O R N IA .
18.'/D: “ All political power is inherent in the people. Gov
ernment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f
the people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same
whenever the public good mag require it."
84132— 11872
1 t
\i
I
25
COLORADO.
1876: “ That all political power is rested in and derived from
the people; that all government of right originates from ihe
people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely
for the good o f the whole.”
CONNECTICUT.
1818: “ That all political power is inherent in the people, and
all free governments are founded on their authority and insti
tuted for their benefit, and they have at all times an undeniable
and indefeasible right to alter their form of government in such
a manner as they may think expedient.”
DELAWARE.
1792: “All just authority in the institutions of political so
ciety is derived from the people and established with their con
sent to advance their happiness, and they may for this end as
circumstances require, from time to time, alter their constitu
tion of government."
FLORIDA.
1838: “ That all political power is inherent in the people, and
free governments are founded on their authority and estab
lished for their benefit, and therefore they have at all times an
inalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form
of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.”
GEORGIA.
1777: “ We, therefore, the representatives of the people, from
' whom all power originates and for whose benefit all government
is intended, by virtue of the power delegated to us, do ordain
and declare, and it is hereby ordained and declared, that the
following rules and regulations be adopted for the future gov
ernment of this State.”
ID A H O .
1S89: “ All political poiccr is inherent in the people. Govern
ment is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and
they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same when
ever they may deem it necessary, and no special privileges or
immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered,
revoked, or repealed by the legislature.”
IL L IN O IS .
1818: “ That all poiccr is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness.”
IN D IA N A .
1816: “ That all poiccr is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and well being. For the advancemnt of these
ends the people have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible
right to alter and reform their government in such manner as
they may think proper.”
IO W A .
18-i6: “ That all political power is inherent in the people.
Government is instituted for the protection, security, and bene
fit of the people, and they have Ihe right at all times to alter
or reform the same whenever the public good may require it.
KANSAS.
1855: “ All political power is inherent in the people. Govern
ment is Instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and
84132—11872
I
they have the right 1o alter, reform, or abolish the same when
ever they may deem it necessary, and no special privileges or
immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, re
voked, or repealed by the general assembly.”
KENTUCKY.
1792: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness. For the advancement of
these ends they have at all times an unalienable and indefeasible
right to alter, reform, or abolish tlieir government in such man
ner as they may think proper.”
L O U IS IA N A .
1868: “ All men are created free and equal and have certain
inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit
o f happiness. To secure these rights governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed
M A IN E .
1819: “All power is inherent in the people; all free govern
ments are founded in their authority and instituted for their
benefit; they have, therefore, an unalienable and indefeasible
right to institute government and to alter, reform or totally
change the same, when their safety and happiness require it.”
M ARYLAND.
1776: “ That all government of right originates from the peo»
pie, is founded in compact only and instituted solely for the good
o f the whole.”
M ASSACH U SETTS.
The first constitution submitted in Massachusetts was rejected
by the people by direct vote at town meetings in the spring o?
1779, because it contained no bill of rights, and for other rea
sons. The next constitution submitted, that o f 17S0, the people
adopted by direct vote at town meetings and by more than twothirds o f all who voted. The bill of rights declares:
B I L L or R I G H T S .
1780: “ A r t i c l e I. All men are born free and equal, and have
certain natural, essential, and inalienable rights; among which
may be reckoned the right o f enjoying and defending their lives
and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting prop
erty; in flue, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and
happiness.
“ A r t . IV. The people of this Commonwealth hare the sole and
exclusive right o f governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and
independent State, and do, and forever shall, exercise and enjoy
every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may not
hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States
of America in Congress assembled.
“ A rt. V. All power residing originally in the people, and being
derived from them, the several magistrates and officers o f gov
ernment vested with authority, whether legislative, executive,
or judicial, are their substitutes and agents and arc at all times
accountable to them."
M IC H IG A N .
1835: “ All political power is inherent in the people.
“ Government is instituted for the protection, security, and
benefit of the iieople; and they have the right at all times to
84132—11872
alter or reform the same and to abolish one form of government
and establish another whenever the public good requires it.”
MINNESOTA.
1857: “ Government is instituted for the security, benefit, and
protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent,
together with the right to alter, modify, or reform such gov
ernment whenever the public good may require it.”
M IS S IS S IP P I.
1S17: “ That all political power is inherent in the people, and
all free governments are founded on their authority and insti
tuted for their benefit, and therefore thej* have at all times an
unalienable and indefeasible right to alter or abolish their form
of government in such manner as they may think expedient.”
J 'y f l
M IS S O U R I.
1820: “ That all political poiccr is vested in and derived from
the people.”
M ONTANA.
1889: “All political poiccr is vested in and derived from the
people; all government of right originates with the people, is
founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the
good of the whole.”
NEBRASKA.
1866-67: “ All men are born equally free and independent and
have certain inherent rights; among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit o f happiness. To secure these rights governments
are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.”
NEVADA.
1864: “All political power is inherent in the people. Govern
ment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit o f the
people, and they have the right to alter or reform the same
whenever the public good may require it.”
NEW
H A M P S H IR E .
In New Hampshire, four constitutions were submitted to tlio
people, who voted directly upon them at town meetings. The
first three were rejected (American Political Science Review,
Vol. II, p. 549) largely because there were no express limita
tions upon the power o f the legislature— no bill of rights. The
bill of rights o f the fourth one, that o f 1784, declares:
1784: “ VII. The people of this State have the sole and ex
clusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and
independent State, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise
and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining
thereto which is not or may not hereafter be by them expressly
delegated to the United States of America in Congress assem
bled.”
•(
NEW
JERSEY.
The New Jersey constitution o f 177G declares:
1776: “ Whereas all the constitutional authority ever possessed
by the Kings o f Great Britain over these Colonies or their other
dominions was, by compact, derived from the people and held of
them for the common interest of the whole society, allegiance and
protection are, in the nature of things reciprocal ties, each equally
depending upon the other and liable to be dissolved by the others
being refused or withdrawn. And whereas George III, King of
Great Britain, has refused protection to the good people of these
84132—11872
I
___
_
Colonies, and, by assenting to sundry acts of the British Parlia
ment. attempted to subject them to the absolute dominion of
that body, and has also made war upon them in the most cruel
and unnatural manner for no'other cause than asserting their
just rights, all civil authority under him is necessarily at an end
and a dissolution of government in each Colony has consequently
taken place.”
NEW
YORK.
The New York bill of rights of 1777 declares:
7777: “ I. This convention, therefore, in the name and by the
authority of the good people o f this State, doth ordain, deter
mine, and declare that no authority shall, on any preteuse what
ever, be exercised over the people or members of this State but
such as shall be derived from and granted by them.”
N O R T H C A R O L IN A .
1776: “ That all political power is vested in and derived from
the people only.”
NORTH
DAKOTA.
1889: “All political power is inherent in the people. Govern
ment is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the
people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same wheu
the public good may require.”
O H IO .
1802: “ That all men are born equally free and independeut,
and have certain natural, inherent, and inalienable rights
* * * and every free republican government being founded
on their sole authority, and organized for the great purpose of
protecting their rights and liberties and securing their inde
pendence; to effect these ends, they have at all times a complete
power to alter, reform, or abolish their government whenever
they may deem it necessary.”
OKLAHOM A.
1907: “ All political power is inherent in the people; and gov
ernment is instituted for their protection. security, and benefit,
and to promote their general welfare; and they have the right
to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may
require it.”
OREGON.
1857: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness, and they have at all times a
right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner
as they may think proper.”
P E N N S Y L V A N IA .
1776: “ That the people o f this State have the sole, exclusive,
and inherent right of governing and regulating the internal
police o f the same.
“ That all power being originally inherent in, and conse
quently derived from, the people: therefore all officers o f goverment. whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and
servants, and at all times accountable to them.”
RHODE
IS L A N D .
18.',2: “ The basis of our political systems is the right of the
people to make and alter their constitutions of government."
84132—11872
I
SO U T H CAROLINA.
1100: “ All power is originally rested in the people; and all
free governments are founded on tlieir authority and are insti
tuted for their peace, safety, and happiness.”
SO U T H D AKOTA.
1889: “ All men are born equally free and independent and
have certain inherent rights, among which arc those of enjoying
and defending life and liberty, of acquiring and protecting
property, and a pursuit of happiness. To secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just pow
ers from the consent of the governed.”
T E N N E SSE E .
1796: “ That all power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safetj*, and happiness; for the advancement of those
ends they have at all times cun unalienable and indefeasible
right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such manner
as they may think proper.”
TEXA S
(R E P U B L I C ).
1836: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and all free
governments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their benefit; and they have at all times an unalienable right to
alter their government in such manner as they may think
proper.”
TEXAS
(S T A T E ).
18-'/o: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and all
free governments are founded on their authority and instituted
for their benefit; and they have at all times the unalienable right
to alter, reform, or abolish their form of government in suchmanner as they may think expedient
UTAH.
1895: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and free
governments are founded on their authority for all their pro
tection and benefit; and they have the right to alter or reform
their government as the public welfare may require.”
V ER M O N T.
1777: “ That all power being originally inherent in. and conse
quently derived from, the people; therefore, all officers of gov
ernment, whether legislative or executive, are their trustees and
servants, and at all times accountable to them.
*
*
*
■
»
*
*
*
“ * * * and that the community hath an indubitable, un
alienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish
government in such manner as shall be, by that community,
judged^most conducive to the public weal.”
V IR G IN IA .
1776: “ That all power is vested in, and consequently derived
from, the people.”
■WASHINGTON*.
1889: “ All political power is inherent in the people, and gov
ernments derive their just powers from the consent of the gov
erned, and a r e e s t a b l i s h e d to protect and maintain individual
rights.”
WEST VIRGINIA.
1861-1863: “ The powers of government reside in ail the citi
zens of the State, and can be rightfully exercised only in ac
cordance with their will and appointment.”
WISCONSIN.
181/8: “ All nici are born equally free and independent and
have certain inh rent rights; among these are life, liberty, and
the pursuit of liat nincss; to secure these rights governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the con
sent of the governed.”
W Y O M IN G .
1889: “ All power is inherent in the people, and all free gov
ernments are founded on their authority and instituted for
their peace, safety, and happiness; for the advancement of
these ends, they have at all limes an inalienable and inde
feasible right to alter, reform, or abolish the government in such
manner as they may think proper.”
THE
I’ EOTLE
BETTER
A U T H O R IT Y
THAN
H A M IL T O N
OR
P IN C K N E Y .
Mr. President, here it will be observed that the people in
the States declare all political power vested in and derived
from the people, and that they have an inalienable and inde
feasible right to alter, amend, or abolish, their form o f gov
ernment in such manner as they may deem expedient. So
that we do not need the quotations from a few reactionary
citizens who were disobeying their representative instructions
in the secret conclave o f 17S7 to tell us what the Constitution
and the law is.
It is rather astonishing to hear from various men of learn
ing that the right of the people to legislate directly is un
constitutional ; that it is “ in conflict with the representative
principle on which this Republic is founded.”
This is the same old federalist argument that was answered
in the Supreme Court of Oregon in the Pacific Telephone case,
where it was urged that the Federal guarantee to the State of a
republican form of government would forbid the initiative and
referendum as in conflict with a republican form of government
or with the so-called representative principle.
(Exhibit B
answers this argument.)
The adoption o f the constitution o f Texas was an act o f direct
legislation by the people of Texas by the referendum on the
initiative of the constitutional convention.
And all of the State constitutions, almost without exception,
have been adopted by the act of the people who directly legis
lated in establishing these various State constitutions by the
referendum.
And they amend all the constitutions in the same fashion—
by direct legislation, almost without exception.
James Bryce, in his American Commonwealth (Morris Edi
tion. 1900. p. 25S), very properly says:
The people frequently legislate directly by enacting or altering a con
stitution.
The principle of popular sovereignty could hardly be ex
pressed more unmistakably. Allowing for the differences to which the
vast size of the country gives rise, the mass of citizens may be deemed
as directly the supreme power in the United States as the assembly was
at Athens or Syracuse.
.Indeed, from the beginning of the history of the American
people they exercised the right of direct legislation, and exer84132—11872
31
eised it in the old town meetings of New England and county
meetings in the South. The Massachusetts towns still govern
themselves by exercising the right of direct legislation in their
town meetings, both the initiative and the referendum.
And all the States of the Union from time to time have pro
vided for the exercise of the right of direct legislation by va
rious forms of local option.
To deny the right of the people to legislate directly is to deny
the fundamental principles of every one of the 48 State con
stitutions. The “ representative principle,” so called, is merely
an incident of the delegation o f legislative and ministerial
power to “ representatives ” as a matter of convenience. This
grant of power to public servants does not, as some statesmen
believe, establish public rulers whose right to rule can not
be questioned. The grant of legislative power by the people
to a State legislature in no wise prevents the people from
exercising their inalienable and indefeasible right o f direct
legislation. The initiative and referendum is perfectly har
monious with the representative principle. In one case the
people legislate through their agents; in the other case they
legislate directly without agents.
It does not overthrow the representative system of govern
ment; it perfects the representative system o f government.
Those who favor the initiative and referendum do not intend
to impair the representative system. They are determined
on the contrary to perfect the representative system, which is
and always has been a mixture of the exercise by the people of
direct power, direct legislation, and of indirect legislation
through representatives.
RECALL NO N O VE LTT.
Even the right o f recall is no novelty under the American
system of government. Every one of the 13 Colonies—the State
of New Hampshire, the State of Massachusetts Bay, the State
of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, the State of New
Jersey, the State o f New York, the State of Connecticut, the
State of Pennsylvania, the State o f Delaware, the State of
Maryland, the State of Virginia, the State o f North Carolina,
the State of South Carolina, the State of Georgia, on the 24th
day of July, 1778, solemnly agreed to the Articles of Confedera
tion of 1777, in Article V, to the right of recall, in which it was
expressly agreed that the various States should appoint delegates
to meet In Congress on the first Monday in November o f every
year—
W ith a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any
of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead
for the remainder o f the year.
D EM O CR ATIC
C O N S T IT U T IO N S
E A S IL Y
AM END ABLE.
Our State governments, while establishing the representative
principle as a matter o f convenience, have nevertheless incor
porated in every instance the declared principle that all power
is vested in the people, and that they retain the right at any
time to alter, amend, or abolish.
All democratic constitutions are flexible and easy to amend. This
follows from the fact that in a government which the people really
control the constitution is merely the means of securing the supremacy
of public opinion and not an instrument for thwarting it.
*
A
government Is democratic just in proportion as it responds to the will
841 3 2 — 11872
I
of the people; since one way to defeat the will of the people is to make
it difficult to alter the form of Government, it necessarily follows that
any constitution which is democratic in spirit must yield readily to
changes in public opinion.
(Spirit of American Governm ent: Sm ith.)
Tlie fact is that with the initiative and referendum the peo
ple merely propose to amend the Jaw establishing the legisla
tures so as to give to the people the option to exercise the right
o f direct legislation where they may find it expedient and proper
to do so. All that is necessary is to enlarge the ordinary State
constitution so as to provide for the people the method of di
rectly legislating by passing an initiated bill or vetoing a re
ferred bill. The legislature got its power to legislate from
the people and the people violate no principle by exercising
directly the legislative power they possess, and which is inalien
able and indefeasible.
In amending the State constitution so as to reserve to the
people the power to initiate and pass a bill by direct vote, or
by the referendum to veto or affirm, as the case may be. an act
passed by the legislature, the people merely exercise their sov
ereign power in a moderate and restricted way, which they
have found necessary after a hundred years o f experience with
representatives in the legislature who have, particularly in this
generation, too frequently failed to pass the laws the people
want, and who have too frequently passed the laws which the
people do not want.
It is absurd to say that this Republic was founded on the
“ representative principle.” This Republic was not founded on
the representative principle. It was founded on the sovereign
right o f the people to manage their own business (and not be
managed by their servants), and it was for this reason that
every State constitution declared this fundamental principle
that all political power was inherent in the people, and that as
sovereign they could at their pleasure alter, amend, or abolish
even the constitutions themselves. This was the great founda
tion stone, and this is the principle now being asserted by the
initiative and the referendum, to w it: The right of the people
to rule. This is the very meaning of the word “ democratic.”
Demos krateiu means “ the people have the right to rule.” It
is the origin of the word “ democrat.” A democrat is a man
who believes in the right of the people to rule.
Aristocracy means the rule of the few, who consider them
selves the best.
Autocracy means the rule of a single person.
Plutocracy means the rule of money.
Democracy means the rule o f the people.
Delegating power to public servants was not new. It was a
convenience and a mode o f exercising popular sovereignty, not
a means of destroying or o f impairing it.
We established the system of delegating the legislative power
to representatives in our State constitutions, who should meet
in legislative assembly and debate and discuss and frame wise
and virtuous laws drawn to promote the general welfare. When
they are candidates they pledge their honor to the people to be
guided by the general welfare. They go to the assembly and
lift their hands to Almighty God ami solemnly swear to be faith
ful to the people, and then special interests come and bring
malign influences to bear upon the weakness of human nature
84132—11872
that lead the legislator away from the paths o f public virtue
iuto passing laws against the general welfare, or in refusing to
pass laws required by the general welfare. Representative gov
ernment is a convenience for the people. No progressive wants
to interfere with it or to change it where it is faithful and per
forms its proper duty; but when these representatives fail to
pass laws of vital importance, when they pass laws doing a
gross wrong to the public interest, the time has come when the
people shall directly exercise so much of tlieir legislative power
as they may find it necessary to exercise at their option in
passing the laws they do want and vetoing the laws they do not
wa nt.
T IIE
A T H E N S AND ROME ARG U M EN T.
Oh, but say these opponents of popular government, remember
the overthrow of the direct democracy of Athens and Rome.
It is difficult to argue with entire patience with men of learn
ing and intelligence who will offer as a reason against popular
government the so-called direct democracy o f Athens and of
Rome. We might as well go to Athens and to Rome to get our
instruction in the management of modern railways and in
handling the telegraph and telephone.
Only one person in 400 could read in Athens and in Rome.
The people were divided into the very few intelligent and cul
tured and into the very, very many who were ignorant of letters
and of the art of government, five-sixths of whom were slaves
and (he vast majority in hopeless poverty. They lacked the
spirit of liberty, and the father controlled by law the son and his
family as long as the father lived, with power of life and death
and property.
It avails nothing to say that the populace o f Athens had an
appreciation o f the beautiful forms of marble which their sculp
tors developed with great cleverness. The vital fact is that
they had no knowledge of government; that they had no means
of public communication except by word of mouth; no knowl
edge of liberty as we know it; and were actually ruled by an
intellectual, financial, and military aristocracy under the forms
of a direct democracy.
To-day the great body of our citizens can read and write.
To-day we have millions of books available and libraries every
where*. To-day the most distant citizen can by the parcel post
receive for a trilling expense the last word upon organized gov
ernment and the art of government. To-day we have the tele
graph and the telephone binding the ends of the world together
and putting information with regard to government all over the
world, its weakness and its strength, in the hands of every citi
zen who cares to know. To-day we have millions of men who
do care to know, and who are interested in good government,
and who are determined to have good government and to over
throw the rule of the self-seeking few and to terminate the
commercial and financial piracy which lias been dealing un
justly with the many for the benefit o f the organized few. To
day we have modern newspapers, a miracle in art and in de
sign, tilled with news brought instantly by telegraph and tele
phone from the ends of the earth: filled with knowledge, litera
ture, and art: filled with finance ami commerce: filled with
sport and lmmor and fun; filled with ten thousand times ten
841:12—11872----- 3
thousand wants and opportunities, which the poorest citizen
can buy for one-hundredth part of his daily wage. Compare
Athens and Rome of 2,000 years ago with Washington, Chicago,
or New Y ork !
Oh, no, Mr. President, the comparison can not be justly made;
and that the opponents of popular government should go so far
to find their argument against the rule of the people shows how
poverty stricken and how poor and how mean are the fallacies
and pretests upon which they rely.
I N IT IA T IV E A N D R E F E R E N D U M
JO K E R S.
Mr. President, there are six dangerous jokers which I wish
to call attention to and which the friends of popular govern
ment should beware of.
Joker 1. Limiting the initiative to statute laws and pro
hibiting the voters from proposing and adopting amendments to
the State constitutions.
The constitutional initiative is the most vital part of any
amendment. For in the State constitutions are many jokers
restraining popular government that need correction by constitu
tional amendment.
Joker 2. To require an improbable or impossible majority
necessary to enact or reject measures submitted to the voters.
Every measure voted on should be decided by the majority
of the votes cast thereon.
Joker 3. To require large petitions to render it difficult to se
cure them, no matter what per cent is required.
Tills is done by increasing the percentages beyond reason or
to require a certain per cent of the legal voters of certain
counties.
The signature of any voter in the State should count regard
less of residence.
Joker 4. To so frame the emergency clause that the legisla
ture may annul the referendum whenever it chooses. The
emergency should only be declared upon a two-thinls majority
of all members on a recorded vote, setting forth the reasons for
the emergency.
Joker 5. To put an arbitrary limit upon the number of meas
ures which may be submitted to the people at any one election,
because the special interests can thus preclude submission of
public measures by offering trivial measures in advance o f the
public measure.
Joker 0. Failure to provide an adequate and efficient method
of informing the voters concerning the measures submitted to
them. The only safety for the political machine is to keep the
people in ignorance. The Oregon publicity pamphlet informs
the people. Insist on the publicity pamphlet.
I submit herewith a model constitutional amendment for the
initiative and referendum, free from jokers, and self-executing:
rn O V O S E D
c o n s t it c t io x a l
a m e n d m e n t
e n d u m
fo r
t h e
in it ia t iv e
an d
r e fe r
.
The legislative authority of this State shall be vested In a legisla
tive assembly consisting of a senate and house of representatives, but
the people reserve to themselves the power to propose legislative meas
ures, resolutions, laws, and amendments to the constitution, and to
enact or reject the same at the polls, independent o f the legislative
assembly, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or
reject at the polls any act, item, section, or any part of any resolution,
act, or measure passed by the legislative as '.ably.
81132— 11872
35
The first power reserved by the people is the initiative, and not
more than 8 per cent, nor in any case more than 50,000, of the legal
voters shall bo required to propose any measure by initiative petition,
and every such petition shall include the full text of the measure so
proposed.
Initiative petitions, except for municipal and wholly local
legislation, shall be tiled with the secretary of state not less than four
months before the election at which they arc to be voted upon.
If
conflicting measures submitted to the people shall be approved by a
majority of the votes severally cast for and against the same, the one
receiving the highest number of affirmative votes shall thereby become
law as to all conflicting provisions.
Proposed amendments to the
constitution shall in all cases be submitted to the people for approval
or rejection.
The in itiative. is also reserved as follo w s: If at any time, not less
than 10 days prior to the convening of the general assembly, there shall
he tiled with the secretary of state an initiative petition for any meas
ure signed by 1 per cent, nor in any case more than 5,000 legal voters,
the secretary of state shall transmit certified copies thereof to the house
of representatives and to the senate immediately upon organization. If
said measure shall he enacted, either as petitioned for or in an amended
form, it shall bo subject to referendum petition as other measures. If
it shall be enacted in an amended form, or if no action is taken thereon
within four months from the convening of the general assembly, it shall
be submitted by the secretary of state to the people at the next regular
general election, provided such submission shall be demanded by sup
plementary initiative petition signed by 4 per cent, nor in any case
more than ,80,000, legal voters and filed not less than four months be
fore such election. Such proposed measure shall be submitted either as
Introduced or with the amendments, or in any amended form which may
have been proposed in 1lie general assembly, as may lie demanded iii
such supplemental petition. If such measure so submitted be approved
by the electors, it shall be law and go into effect, and any amended
form of such measure wljich may have been passed by the genera! as
sembly shall thereby stand repealed.
Tiie second power is the referendum, and it may lie ordered either
by petition signed by the required percentage of the legal voters or by
the legislative assembly as other bills are enacted. Not more than 5
per cent, nor in any case more than 80,000 legal voters, shall be re
quired to sign and make a valid referendum petition. Only signatures
of legal voters whose names are on tin registration hooks and records
shall be counted on initiative and on referendum petitions.
If it shall be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public
peace, health, or safety that a measure shall become effective without
delay, such necessity shall lie stated in one section, and if. by separate
v o te 'o f yeas and nays, three-fourths of all the members shall vote on
a separate roll call in favor of the measure going into instant opera
tion. because it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the
public peace, health, or safety, such measure shall become operative
upon being filed in the office of the secretary of state or city clerk as
the case may b e : Provided, That an emergency shall not be declared on
any measure creating or abolishing any office or to change the salary,
term, or duties of any officer or granting any franchise or act alienating
any property of the State. If a referendum petition shall be filed against
an emergency measure such measure shall become a law until it is voted
upon bv the people and if it is then rejected by a majority of those vot
ing upon the question such measure shall be thereby repealed.
No
statute, ordinance, or resolution approved by vote of the people shall bo
amended or repealed bv the legislative assembly or any city council
except by three-fourths Vote of all the members taken by yeas and uays.
The provisions of this section apply to city councils.
The initiative and referendum powers of the people are hereby fur
ther reserved to the legal voters of each municipality and district as to
nil local, special, and municipal legislation o f every character in and
for their respective municipalities and districts.
Every extension, en
largement, purchase, grant, or conveyance of a franchise or of any
rights, property, easement, lease, or occupation of <r in any road, street,
alley, or park, or any part thereof, or in any real property, or interest
in any real property owned by u municipal corporation, whether the
same be made by statute, ordinance, resolution, or otherwise, shall be
subject to.referendum by petition. In the case of laws chiefly of local
interest, whether submitted by initiative or referendum petition or by
the legislative assembly, shall be voted upon and approved or rejected
only bv the people o f'th e locality chiefly interested, except when the
legislative assembly shall order the measure submitted to the people of
the State. Cities and towns may provide for the manner of exercising
841 3 2 — 11872
I
Initiative and referendum powers as to tlieir municipal legislation sub
ject to the general laws of the State. Not more than 10 per cent of
the legal voters may be required to order the referendum nor more than
15 per cent to propose any measure by the Initiative In any city, town,
<T’ local subdivision of the State.
The filing of a referendum petition against one or more items, sec
tions, or parts of any act, legislative measure, resolution, or ordinance
shall not delay the remainder of the measure from becoming operative.
Referendum petitions against measures passed by the legislative assem
bly shall be filed with the secretary o f state not later than 90 days
after the final adjournment of the session of the legislative assembly
at which the measure on which the referendum is demanded was passed,
except when the legislative assembly shall adjourn at any time tem
porarily for a period longer than 90 days, in which case such refer
endum petitions shall be filed not later than 90 day3 after such tem
porary adjournment. The veto power of the governor or the mayor shall
not extend to measures initiated by or referred to the people.
A ll
elections on general, local, and special measures referred to the people
o f the State or of any locality shall be had at the regular general elec
tions, occurring not less than four months after the petition is filed,
except wdien the legislative assembly or the governor shall order a
special election, but counties, cities, and towns may provide for special
elections on local matter*.
Any measure initiated by the people, or
referred to the people as herein provided, shall take effect and become
law if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon and not
otherwise.
Every such measure shall take effect oO days after the
election at which it is approved. The style of all bills shall b e : “ Be it
enacted by the people of (name of State, municipality, or co u n ty).”
T his section shall not bo construed to deprive any member of the legis
lative assembly cr of a city council of the right to introduce any meas
ure. The whole number of electors who voted for governor at the regu
lar election last preceding the filing of any petition for the initiative or
for the referendum shall be the basis on which the number of registered
voters necessary to sign such petition shall be computed. Petitions and
orders for the initiative and for the referendum shall lie filed with the
secretary of state or in municipal or local elections with the countv or
city clerk or such other officer as may be provided by law.
In sub
mitting the same to the people he and all other officers shall be guided
by the general laws until additional legislation shall be especially pro
vided therefor. This amendment shall be self-executing, but the legis
lature may enact laws facilitating its operation. All proposed measures
submitted to the people shall be printed in pamphlet form, together
with arguments for and against, as may be provided for by law, and
mailed by the secretary of state to the electors at least 50 days before
the election at which they are to be voted.
O B JE C T IO N S TO T H E
I N IT IA T IV E AND T.EFF.EENDCM.
Mr. President, what are the objections to the initiative and
referendum
First, it has been objected that it was contrary to the socalled “ representative ” principle of the Constitution. This
objection I have abundantly answered. (Exhibit B.)
Second, that the people are not capable of direct legislation.
The contrary has been abundantly shown by the experiences
in all o f the States and countries which have put it into effect.
Third, that representative democracy is better than direct
democracy. The answer to this is that there is no such issue,
since the optional initiative and referendum in nowise inter
feres with representative democracy.
Fourth, that the initiative and referendum would destroy de
liberation, debate, and result in hasty legislation. The fact is
an initiated bill is usually drawn by a group o f patriotic citi
zens, who prepare the bill with infinite pains, consulting the best
experts in the State, and only present it to the State after it
has been thoroughly considered. It appears in the public
prints; it is discussed by the citizens from one end o f the State
to the other; it is presented to each citizen o f the State in a
8-1132— 1187:1
publicity pamphlet, giving the arguments for and against it,
and a sufiicient length of time before the election, that each
citizen can thoroughly understand it; and then each citizen in
the State, in the quiet and seclusion o f the ballot box, expresses
his opinion with regard to it, without excitement and without
passion and with the utmost deliberation.
In Congress we pass volumes of bills. Is it incredible that
1lie citizens who have the intelligence to select Senators and
Presidents should also have the intelligence to pass one bill, or
even txvo or three bills?
I have heard of hasty legislation by representatives, without
much debate in legislatures, and sometimes in a conference
committee important legislation has been put on a tariff bill
by misrepresentatives at the instance of private interests and
against the general welfare in great haste and without debate.
Such hasty laws under a referendum could be vetoed by the
people and ought to be vetoed.
THE X'EOrr.E WILL NOT VOTE----FALLACY.
The crowning charge against the initiative and referendum
by the former Senator from Texas is that only a small per cent
of the people will vote, and his data is based on the cases of
compulsory referendum. In Oklahoma the percentages have
run from 54 to 100 per cent o f the citizens voting. In Maine it
lias run from 50 to 100 per cent. In Missouri, from 71 per cent
to 05 per cent; in Arkansas, from 75 per cent to 90 per cent;
in Montana, from 72 per cent to SO per cent; in Oregon it has
run from 61 per cent up to 90 per cent; in South Dakota, from
57 per cent to 92 per cent.
Those who do not vote on these questions o f public policy
submitted by the initiative and referendum are those citizens
who are ignorant or indifferent to such questions of public
policy, and wlio voluntarily disfranchise themselves, leaving the
more" intelligent and more interested citizens to decide these
questions. This voluntary disfranchisement o f the unfit is of
public benefit.
But, Mr. President, out of 1S7 yea-and-nay votes in the Senate
previous to the retirement o f the Senator lie himseif appears
only to have voted 18 times, or less than 10 per cent. The
people appear to be from 500 to 900 per cent better than this
record, and are otherwise not justly subject to his criticism.
I submit an Exhibit A to my remarks upon this question
giving in detail the percentages o f votes in various States and
the principles governing the initiative and referendum and ask
that it be printed as a Senate document.
Mr. President, the restoration o f popular government is ab
solutely essential to the welfare and happiness o f the Ameri
can people. The time has come when we must terminate the
gross abuses o f machine politics, when we must purify our
governmental processes and establish the best form of govern
ment of which the American intelligence and conscience is
capable. The people's rule system of government is not, or
should not be, a partisan question. This issue of the people's
rule goes to the root of all other questions because all modem
questions practically comprise some form in which the rights,
the interests, the health, and the happiness of the people is
84132— 11872
interfered with by the special interests seeking profit or promo
tion through the machine method of government. It is abso
lutely essential for the people to announce a new Declaration of
Independence, freedom from the rule of the few, freedom from
the rule of the special interests, freedom from the machine poli
ticians who are in alliance with the special interests which have
perverted the great Republic from its noblest ideals to sordid
and selfish ends. In the words of the immortal Lincoln:
It is for us, the living, to highly resolve that this Nation, under God.
shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government o f the people,
by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.
TIIE REASONS IN BRIEF JUSTIFYING DIRECT LEGISLATION.
The reasons in brief which justify direct legislation have been
perhaps best stated by Prof. Frank Parsons in 1900. since de
ceased. Prof. Parsons was a great publicist, with no ax to
grind, no political ambition, and no other purpose than to serve
God and mankind “ in spirit and in truth."
Direct legislation— that is, direct legislation by the optional
initiative and referendum.
1. Is essential to self-government.
2. Destroys the private monopoly of lawmakers.
3. Is a common-sense application of the established principles
of agency.
4. Will perfect the representative system.
5. Is immediately and easily practicable.
G. Makes for political purity.
7. Kills the lobby.
8. Makes it useless to bribe legislators because they can not
deliver the goods.
9. Attracts better men to political life.
10. Simplifies elections.
11. Simplifies the law.
12. Lessens the power o f partisanship.
13. Elevates the press and the people.
14. Stops class legislation.
15. Opens the door of progress.
1G. Is wisely conservative.
17. Works an automatic disfranchisement o f the unfit.
IS. Tends to stability.
19. 7s a safety valve for discontent.
20. Is in line with the general trend o f modern political his
tory throughout the world.
I might add to these reasons—
21. Causes public servants to do their utmost to serve the
public interest, knowing that the power of the people is over
them directly!
22. It thus enthrones righteousness and the general welfare
by giving sovereign power to the intelligence and conscience
of the Nation.
23. It tends powerfully to educate the people on questions of
public i>oliey and increases the general intelligence.
24.
will enable the people to pass a thoroughgoing corruptpractices act, a mandatory direct primary, and other progres
sive statutes necessary to establish the people's rule, which r.
machine-controlled legislature otherwise can and will prevent.
84132— 11S72
Till: OBJECTION'S TO TIIE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Arc imaginary or based on erroneous information. Under
tlie initiative and referendum only a few (not many, as objected)
important laws would be referred to the people or initiated by
the people.
The initiative and referendum is not hasty, without delibera
tion or by impulse, as objected, but the most deliberate of all leg
islative processes, usually taking about two years.
It is objected that from 20 to J/0 per cent of the people do
not vote on initiated measures. This only means that the ig
norant or indifferent voter voluntarily disfranchises himself,
leaving the questions of public policy to be decided by more in
telligent and interested voters.
It is objected that the voters can not pass on complicated
laics. The answer to this is that, complicated or not, the people
well know the difference between honest and dishonest laws,
between just and unjust laws, and when they have the power
to kill the latter no more of them are apt to be made. Moreover,
it is easier to pass upon a law in black and white, even if com
plicated, than to pass upon a complicated man and what ho will
do under the influence of the lobby.
It is objected that it is impracticable. This objection is
based upon unadulterated ignorance.
It is objected we should “ elect better men.” We have tried
this game long enough. It has failed. The system under which
the “ big stick ” bangs over the “ representative man ” will
make him better. It makes an unfaithful servant powerless,
and this is the man we are after.
It is objected that direct legislation will destroy representa
tive government. This is purely imaginary. It will perfect
representative government and make the representative per
form his duty or enable the people to correct his sins of omis
sion or his sins o f commission.
To accomplish integrity of government and perfect the sys
tem of popular government, we need—
First. An adequate registration system to register all entitled
to vote, so that no person not entitled shall be registered, and
open at all times to public examination.
Second. A secret ballot—Australian system—under which the
financial and commercial bullies can not coerce or bribe the
weak citizen whose bread and butter they control.
Third. A direct mandatory primary, by which the voters can
select their candidates regardless of the political machine.
Fourth. A statute preventing corrupt practices, directly lim
iting the use of money, preventing bribery, coercion, and fraud,
requiring publicity of campaign contributions, and giving the
voter peace and absolute security from pressure on election day.
Fifth. A constitutional amendment for the initiative and ref
erendum fo r every State, and statutes vitalizing the same so
that the people can amend their State constitution when they
like and can enact any laws-they do want or veto any laws they
do not want, in spite o f the machine or the influence of political
mercenaries.
•Sixth. A statute providing publicity pamphlets, giving each
citizen before election time full information and arguments for
and against all public measures and for and against all public
candidates.
Seventh. A statute providing for the recall, by which the
people can nominate a successor to an incompetent, unfaithful,
or obnoxious public servant.
Eighth. Local self-government for cities and towns by com
mission, with the initiative, referendum, and recall.
Ninth. The short ballot, with preferential provisions, by which
the votes of unorganized citizens may be automatically cohered.
Tenth. The direct election of United States Senators.
Eleventh. 'The direct nomination of presidential candidates.
These are the chief agencies by which we shall restore the
integrity and the efficiency o f our Government, and o f these
agencies “ the initiative and the referendum ’’ arc first, because
they open the door to all the others.
Mr. President, in my judgment the Senate of the United
States should throw the weight o f its influence in favor o f the
initiative and referendum and not against it. I therefore offer
a substitute for Senate resolution 413. Strike out all after the
resolving clause in Senate resolution 413 and insert the follow
ing:
That the system of direct legislation, such as the optional initiative
and referendum adopted by Oklahoma. Oregon. California. W ashington,
Arizona. Utah, Colorado. Montana, North Dakota. South Dakota, M is
souri, Arkansas, Nebraska, Wisconsin. Ohio, and Maine, is in harmony
with and makes more effective the representative system and the prin
ciple of the sovereignty cf the people upon which this Republic was
founded, and is not in conflict with the republican form of government
guaranteed by the Constitution.
84132— 11872
POSTAL
SAVINGS
DEPOSITORIES
SP E E C H
OF
IION. ROBERT L. OW EN
OF
OKLAHOMA
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
FEBRUARY 25, 1910
W A S H IN G T O N
1910
29883—8760
SPEECH
OK
II ON.
ROBERT
L.
OWEN.
* '
5;!
PO ST A L S A V IN G S D E PO SIT O R IE S.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the con
sideration of the bill (S. 5876) to establish postal savings de
positories for depositing savings at interest with the security
of the Government for repayment thereof, and for other pur
poses.
Mr. OWEN. I ask that the amendment I have proposed to
the pending bill may be read.
The VICE-PRESIDENT. The Secretary will read the pro
posed amendment
The S ecretary . It is proposed to strike out all after the
enacting clause of Senate bill 5876 and to insert:
From and after the passage of this act the Comptroller of the Cur
rency shall set apart the annual tax on the circulation of the national
hanking associations of the United States as a special fund, to be desig
nated the “ hank depositors' guaranty fund," to be used by the comp
troller for the immediate payment of the depositors of any national
bank failing after the passage of this act. The net liquidated assets of
any national bunk of which tIre Comptroller of the Currency takes charge
for the purpose of liquidation shall be deposited to the credit of the
“ bank depositors' guaranty fund " to the extent required to reimburse
such fund any moneys advanced by such fund for the payment of the
depositors of such hank.
No deposit under contract, either directly
or indirectly, to bear interest in excess of 4 per cent per annum on
time deposit, or in excess of 2 per cent per annum on current account,
shall be included in the insurance provided by this act. and no such
deposit shall be paid out of the “ bank depositors' guaranty fund.”
That any state bank or trust company may have its deposits guar
anteed by the “ bank depositors’ guaranty fu n d ” upon an equitable
system to be prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency and ap
proved by the President of the United States.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, in offering a substitute for the
postal savings-bank Dill I do not do so under the belief that it
will be adopted by the Senate, but for the purpose o f calling
attention to the imi>ortance o f the subject-matter and because
as a Democrat, believing in the doctrine laid down by the
national Democratic convention, for one I should like to offer to
the Senate at least an opportunity to conform to the proposal of
the Democracy in Its last national platform, which is as follows:
YVe pledge ourselves to legislation under which the national banks
shall be required to establish a guaranty fund for the prompt payment
of the depositors of any insolvent national bank, under an equitable sys
tem which should be available to all state banking institutions wishing
to use it.
W e favor a postal savings bank if the guaranteed bank can not be
secured, and believe that It should be so constituted as to keep the
deposited money In the communities where the depositors live.
The postal savings-bank bill has been amended in the com
mittee and in the Senate so as to provide that the money shall
29883— 8760
* 3
;
^
T,
4
be kept in the vicinity in which it is proposed these deposits
shall be made, and unless it be amended to the contrary before
its passage I should feel obliged to support the bill, because it
appeals to my judgment as being practical and sound, as serving
a great public use, and because I believe it to be constitutional;
but, Mr. President, I see no reason why the postal savings-bank
bill should not become a law, and at the same time the bankguaranty plan be applied to the national banks of the United
States under a system which would permit the state banks to
be the beneficiaries of that plan.
There has been carried on in this country a deliberate propa
ganda against either the postal savings-bank proposition or any
plan of mutual guaranty o f bank deposits by the legislative com
mittee o f the American Bankers’ Association. I hold in my
hand their report of a meeting in Chicago in September, 1909,
and, since they are deserving of a hearing, I shall read their ob
jections. They sa y :
Resolved, That the American Bankers’ Association is unalterably op
posed to any arbitrary plan looking to the mutual guaranty of deposits
either by a State or the Nation, for the following reasons:
1. It is a function outside of the State or National Government.
2. It is unsound in principle.
3. It is impracticable and misleading.
4. It is revolutionary in character.
5. It is subversive to sound economics.
6. It will lower the standard of our present banking system.
7. It is productive of and encourages bad banking.
8. It is a delusion that a tax upon the strong will prevent failures of
the weak.
9. It discredits honesty, ability, and conservatism.
10. A loss suffered by one bank jeopardizes all banks.
11. The public must eventually pay the tax.
12. It will cause and not avert panics.
Resolved, That the American Bankers’ Association is unalterably op
posed to any arbitrary plan looking to the mutual guaranty of
deposits either by a State or the Nation, believing it to be impracticable,
unsound, and misleading, revolutionary in character, and subversive to
sound economics, placing a tool in the hands of the unscrupulous and
inexperienced for reckless banking, and knowing further that such a
law weakens our banking system and jeopardizes the interests of the
people.
Every hostile economic suggestion of these excellent gentle
men has been fully met by the Oklahoma banking system and
demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be ludicrously untrue.
I f there were any more adjectives available in the financial
vocabulary they would have been doubtless used by these gen
tlemen, who, if they lived in the Indian country, would be called
“ Young-men-afraid-of-losing-their-deposits.”
When their ver
bal abuse is all summed up, the meaning of this opposition of
the members of this legislative committee o f the American
Bankers’ Association can, I think, be put in a few words,
namely, that the very few citizens representing the larger
banks of the country who practically dominate and control this
association, believe that a guaranty plan making safe the de
posits o f the small banks will take away from the larger banks,
to some measurable extent, a portion of their deposits. In my
own judgment, they are in error as to this, because when the
small banks become the depositories o f the money which is now
hidden in private hoards and which is not now in circulation in
any bank, the increasing dei>osits passing into the hands o f the
small banks will, through the reserve system, contribute most
substantially to the city banks. I think the accuracy o f their
29883— 8760
5
criticism o f this system is perhaps illustrated also by the
accuracy of their prophecies. They sa y :
Your committee’s greatest work during the past year was that of
preparing plans and assisting the committee of the savings bank section
in defeating the numerous measures for the establishing of a postal
savings banking system for the United States.
W e w ill not at this time discuss the various bills, as they are all
dead (peace to their memory).
It seems that they are not all dead, but the spirit of the pos
tal saving^ plan is very much alive in the pending bill. The
present postal savings-bank bill is offered- to the country in pur
suance of the declaration of the Republican platform, pledging
to the people o f the United States a postal savings-bank bill.
Both parties are committed to this proposition—the Demo
cratic party in the alternative, the Republican party directly.
I shall stand for this bill in the alternative, as proposed by the
national Democracy, and I shall at the proper time propose this
amendment to the bill, as well as offer it as a substitute for
this bill.
Mr. President, on the 15th of January, 1908, I introduced
a bill, Senate 3988, providing substantially for the above pro
vision, for the purpose of preventing panics in the United
States and for the purpose of giving stability to our national
commerce. On the 14th of February, 1908. the State of Okla
homa passed an act establishing a bank depositors’ guaranty
fund for the state banks of Oklahoma, under which the national
banks of that State might avail themselves o f the bank depos
itors’ guaranty fund by a plan to be agreed on between the
authorities of the State and the Comptroller of the Cur
rency. The Comptroller o f the Currency held that no na
tional bank could be authorized, under the law, to take ad
vantage o f the privileges offered by the State o f Oklahoma,
and the Attorney-General of the United States, in an opinion,
sustained that view of the Comptroller of the Currency. In
consequence, 73 national banks in Oklahoma in the first seven
teen months of the operation of the Oklahoma bank depositors’
guaranty law gave up their charters as national banks and be
came state banks o f Oklahoma.
Up to date I understand that over 90 o f the national banks
have given up their charters in the State of Oklahoma. That
is, over a fourth of these banks have retired in less than two
years.
Are you prepared to let the national banking system in Okla
homa lose further prestige by refusing the remedy I propose?
The actual operation of the bank depositors’ guaranty fund
has been the most brilliant answer to every hostile prophecy
and the most triumphant reply to every critic o f the system.
The Oklahoma statute was drawn with great care, with the
active assistance and cooperation o f many o f the leading bankers
o f that State.
Every reasonable safeguard was provided to give the Okla
homa banks the greatest security and stability possible. For
example, the persons organizing a bank were subject as indi
viduals to the approval o f the bank commissioner of the State,
who required such persons to be men of good character and of
good precedents, and free from the suspicion of engaging in the
banking business for speculative puri>oses.
A double liability was imposed upon stockholders.
The capital was required to be fully paid.
29883— 8700
6
The bank was not permitted to receive money on deposit in
excess of ten times the amount o f its paid-up capital and sur
plus, but provided for increase of capital in that event to cor
respond with increase of deposits.
It was forbidden to pay interest on deposits in excess of a
rate to be fixed from time to time by the bank commissioner,
who fixed a low rate not exceeding 4 per cent on time deposits
and a lower rate on current accounts.
Iieal estate loans in excess o f 2 0 i>er cent of the aggregate
loan of such banks was forbidden.
The bank commissioner was authorized to require the in
crease of the bank's capital or surplus to prevent an excess of
the bank’s deposits of over ten times its capital and surplus.
The active bank officers were forbidden to lend the money of
the bank to themselves.
The bank was forbidden to employ its moneys in trade or
commerce, to buy the stock of other banks, or to make loans on
its own capital stock.
The banks were required to carry a reserve of from 2 0 per
cent in towns of 2.500 or less to 25 per cent in towns exceed
ing 2,500 inhabitants.
Savings associations were required to keep 10 per cent of their
deposits on hand in cash and 1 0 per cent additional in bonds of
the United States, or state, county, or municipal bonds of the
State of Oklahoma worth not less than par.
The total liabilities to any bank o f any person, company, cor
poration, or firm for money borrowed, including in the liabili
ties of such company the liabilities of the several members
thereof, were forbidden in excess of 2 0 per cent of the capital
stock actually paid in.
Banks in an insolvent condition were forbidden to receive de
posits.
Suitable penalties were provided for any false report or im
proper conduct.
Full publicity was required.
Frequent rei>orts and examinations were provided.
Overdrafts were forbidden, the officer o f the bank allowing
the same to be personally liable.
Preference to any depositor or creditor by pledging the assets
of the bank as collateral security was forbidden.
Habitual borrowing for the purpose of reloaning was placed
under control.
The immediate replacement of an impaired capital was pro
vided.
A bank dei>ositors* guaranty fund was provided, to reach in
twenty years an equivalent o f 5 per cent of the average deposits
of the banks, the guaranty fund to equal 1 j>er cent o f the de
posits for the first year and a sum equal to one-twentieth of
such 5 i>er cent, or one-fourth o f 1 per cent of such deposits i>er
annum, until the total amount o f 5 per cent o f such dej>osits
should have been paid at the end of twenty years.
New banks organizing were required to s*>t aside 3 i>er cent of
their capital for the guaranty fund.
Additional assessments were provided for in case o f extraor
dinary emergency, with a proviso that the emergency assess
ments should not in any calendar year exceed 2 per cent o f the
average daily d e b i t s of such banks and trust companies.
29883— 8760
7
If tlie emergency assessments should prove to be insufficient to
pay off the depositors of any failed banks having valid claims
against said depositors’ guaranty fund, the state banking board
is required to issue and deliver to each depositor having any
such unpaid deposit a certificate of indebtedness for the amount
of his unpaid deposit, bearing t5 per cent interest, consecutively
numbered and payable in serial order.
The law provided that any bank put in liquidation by the
bank commissioner should have its depositors immediately paid
from the bank depositors’ guaranty fund. The bank commis
sioner has similar powers to the Comptroller of the Currency.
The banks are forbidden to loan money in excess of 12 per
cent, with a legal rate of 7 per cent.
Mr. President, I have thus outlined the principal features
of the Oklahoma law, because it has been much misunderstood
throughout the United States and indeed has been grossly
misinterpreted by special interests, who regard the prosi>erity
of small banks and the growth of the deposits of small banks
with hostility, upon the narrow and unsound doctrine that the
volume of deposits going to small banks will diminish the
volume of deposits in the large banks.
In point of fact, as the deposits of the small banks grow,
such banks naturally become dei>ositors in the larger banks
of the country to the extent which the convenience of commerce
justifies.
For the information of the Senate and for the information
of the people of the United States, I requested a statement
from the state banking department of Oklahoma and submit
the following letter from Hon. A. M. Young, bank commissioner,
together with the inclosed condensed and comparative state
ments, giving the resources and condition of the state banks
and of the national banks between February 14, 1908, when the
Oklahoma bank-depositors’ guaranty law went into effect, and
June 23, 1909, with a further statement between June 23, 1909,
and November 16, 1909:
S tate B a n k in g D ep a r tm e n t ,
S tate of O k l a h o m a ,
Guthrie, February i, 1910.
Hon. R obert L. O w e n ,
Washington, D. G.
M y D ear M r . O w e n : Your telegram received.
1 should have given
this matter attention earlier, but 1 have been extremely busy.
I inclose condensed and comparative statements which will give you
some idea as to the popularity and growth of the guaranty law in our
State.
W e have had three national and three state bank failures since the
law went into effect. Three national banks have converted into state
hanks since the failure of the Columbia Bank and Trust Company and
three state hanks have converted into national.
I have had about 25
applications for new banks since the failure of the Columbia Bank
and Trust Company.
I took charge of the Columbia September 29. with deposits of
$2,9 0 0 ,0 0 0 .
The doors were never closed, but individual depositors
were paid ns they called for their money. This large failure did not
In the slightest degree interfere with other banks or the financial inter
ests of the city or State.
* *
*
*
*
*
In fact, in the first sixty days after this failure state banks
gained more than 33 per cent in deposits and the national banks some
thing like 10 per cent.
I mention this, as it is entirely foreign to what
usually follows a batik failure.
The' First State Bank at Kiefer had on deposit with the Farmers’
National Bank at Tulsa something over $20,000 at the time the latter
institution failed.
I took charge of this bank December 14. They had
In eight days' time every single depositor had
$78,000 on deposit.
29 8 8 3 — 8700
received their money.
The Farmers’ National Bank, which closed on
the above date, is still closed.
The way a failed national bank is handled is very little short of
barbarism.
If there is any other information desired that I can give yon do not
hesitate to call for it.
Assuring you of my best wishes, I am,
Very respectfully,
A. M. Y oung,
Bank Commissioner.
State Banking Department ,
Chuthrie, Okla.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF THE CONDITION OF STATE BANKS IN OKLA
HOMA AND OTHER INFORMATION IN REGARD TO NATIONAL AND STATE
BANKS AS SHOWN BY REPORTS OF COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY AND
OF THE BANK COMMISSIONER OF OKLAHOMA UNDER DATE OF JUNE
23, 1909.
Consolidated statement of the condition of the state banks in Okla
homa, and other information in regard to national and state banks, as
shown by reports under date of June 23, 1 9 0 9 :
State banks of the State o f Oklahoma.
RESOURCES.
Loans and discounts------------------------------------------------------------- $35, 137, 300. 08
719, 616. 37
O v e r d r a fts __________________________________________________ .
3, 598, 934. 06
Bonds, warrants, and securities__________________________
Banking house, furniture, and fixtures__________________
2, 274, 558. 28
Other real estate owned----------------------------------------------------307, 304. 71
Due from banks_____________________________________________
1 4 ,3 9 0 ,1 1 4 .8 6
Exchange for clearing house_____________________________
299, 479. 34
Checks and other cash items_____________________________
280, 325. 60
Cash in banks________________________________________________
3, 643, 366. 56
60, 650, 999. 86
LIABILITIES.
Capital stock paid in------------------------------------------------------Surplus f u n d ------------------------------------------------------------------------Undivided profits------------------------------------------------------------------Due to banks-------------------------------------------------------------------------Individual dep osits_________________________________________
Cashiers’ and certified checks____________________________
Bills pay ab le________________________________________________
R e d isc o u n ts_________________________________________________
10, 270,
758,
l , 615,
3, 896,
42, 722,
527,
729,
138,
800.
774.
882.
541.
927.
593.
250.
230.
00
03
23
02
57
53
98
50
60. 650, 999. 86
The Oklahoma guaranty law went into effect February 14, 1908,
since which time 163 state banks have been chartered, 73 of which
were conversions of national banks, with deposits approximating
$ 7 ,300,000.
Individual deposits in state banks February 29, 1 9 0 8 __$18, 032, 284. 91
Individual deposits in national banks February 14,
1 9 0 8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3 8 ,2 9 8 ,2 4 7 .0 7
Individual deposits in state banksJune
23, 1 9 0 9_______
42, 722, 927. 57
Individual deposits in nationalbanksJune
23, 1 9 0 9 ____
38, 111, 948. 40
Gain in state bank deposits since the guaranty law
went into effect____________________________________________
24, 690, 644. 66
Loss in national bank deposits for the same length of
tim e -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------186, 298. 67
Capital stock of
state banks February 29, 1 9 0 8____
5, 833, 216 65
Capital stock of
national banks February 14, 1 9 0 8_
12, 215 350 Oil
Capital stock of
state banks June 23, 1 9 0 9 _________
10, 270 800 00
Capital stock of
national banks June 23, 1909____
9 ’ 7 3 0 ’ ooo! 00
Number of state banks February 29, 1908. 470.
Number of national banks Februarv 14, 1908, 312.
Numl>er o f state banks June 23, 1909. 631.
Number o f national banks June 23, 1909 222
Ninety national banks have converted and liquidated since guarantv
law went into effect.
6
1
Average reserve held by state banks June 23, 1909, 42 3 per cent
The state banks of Oklahoma on February 5, April 28 and June 23
1909 held a higher reserve than the national banks of any State in
the Lmon except Colorado.
Bank failures, none.
A. M. Y oung,
2 9 8 8 3 -8 7 6 0
9
S tate B a s k in g D ep a r tm e n t ,
Guthrie, Okla.
Consolidated statem ent of the condition of all state banks in the State
of Oklahoma, as shown by reports under dates of June 2S, 1909, and
November 16, 1909.
J u n e 2 3 ,1 9 0 9 .
N o v . 16, 1909.
631
662
N u m b e r o f b a n k s . .........................................................—
RESOURCES.
L o a n s a n d d i s c o u n t s ............................................................ $ 3 5 , 1 3 7 ,3 0 0 .0 8
n 9 .6 1 6 .3 7
O v e r d r a f t s - - _______ ______ __________
____________
B o n d s , w a r r a n t s , a n d s e c u r i t ie s .....................................
3 .5 9 8 ,9 3 4 . 0 6
2 ,2 7 4 ,5 5 8 . 2 8
B a n k in g h o u s e , f u r n it u r e , a n d f i x t u r e s ......................
3 0 7 ,3 0 4 .7 1
O th e r r e a l e s t a t e o w n e d .....................................................
1 1 , 3 9 0 ,1 1 4 .8 6
D u e f r o m b a n k s ......................................................................
2 9 9 ,4 7 9 .3 4
E x c h a n g e f o r c le a r in g h o u s e ..........................................
2 8 0 , 3 2 5 .GO
C h e c k s a n d o t h e r c a s h i t e m s ............................................
3 ,6 4 3 .3 6 6 . 5 6
C a s h in b a n k s ..........................................................................
$ 3 5 , 0 1 0 ,7 2 1 .9 6
2 ,2 4 8 ,5 7 5 . 0 8
3 . 5 4 3 .3 5 9 . 1 8
2 ,3 9 6 ,9 5 7 . 1 4
2 3 4 ,7 2 6 .0 9
1 8 ,5 0 8 ,3 8 5 .2 0
1 . 6 5 3 .5 5 8 . 1 9
4 9 7 ,3 4 6 .5 2
4 ,6 0 7 ,3 4 8 . 7 0
6 0 , 6 5 0 ,9 9 9 .8 6
6 8 , 7 0 0 ,9 7 8 .0 6
C a s h ie r s ’ a n d c e r tifie d c h e c k s ..................... .......... ..
B ills p a y a b l e .............................................................................
R e d is c o u n t s ............................................................... ...........
1 0 , 2 7 0 ,8 0 0 .0 0
7 5 8 ,7 7 4 .0 3
1 .6 1 5 ,8 8 2 . 2 3
3 , 8 9 6 .5 4 1 . 0 2
4 2 , 7 2 2 ,9 2 7 .5 7
5 2 7 ,5 9 3 .5 3
7 2 0 .2 5 0 .9 6
1 3 8 . 2 3 0 .5 0
1 0 , 7 6 7 ,8 0 0 .0 0
8 8 1 , 3 4 0 .8 7
1 ,5 1 1 ,1 2 2 . 3 4
0 4 ,5 3 7 ,0 6 0 . 8 3
a 4 9 ,7 7 5 ,4 3 3 .4 1
<* 6 5 0 ,7 5 2 .0 2
4 2 8 ,3 7 8 .3 7
1 4 9 ,0 7 0 .2 2
T o t a l .................................................................................
6 0 ,6 5 0 .9 9 9 .8 6
6 8 , 7 0 0 ,9 7 8 .0 6
4 2 .3
4 9 .7
T o t a l ...................................- ........... - ......................... .
LIABILITIES.
C a p i t a l s t o c k p a id i n ..........................................................
S u r p lu s f u n d ............................................................................
U n d iv id e d p r o t it s ____________ _______________ _______ _
D u e t o b a n k s ............................................................................
A v e r a g e r e s e r v e h e l d .......................................p e r c e n t . .
a Total deposits, $54,963,266.25.
Increase in individual deposits between June 23. 1909. and
November 16. 1909........................................................................................$7,052,505.84
Increase in individual deposits between September 1 and Novem
ber 16, 1909 ............................................................................. - ------- ---------- 4,998.173,96
A. M. Y oung , Bank Commissioner.
Mr. OWEN. Mr. President, I am informed by the bank com
missioner that in liis judgment the bank guaranty fund of the
State of Oklahoma will not be seriously impaired when the
assets of the Columbia Bank and Trust Company have been
entirely liquidated; that the private depositors will lose noth
ing and that the State will lose nothing.
It will be observed that the state banks in Oklahoma had
only $18,032,000 of individual deposits on February 29, 1908, and
on November 10, 1909, had $49,775,433.41 o f individual deposits,
with total deiKisits of over $54,903,000, an increase of about 200
per cent in deposits in less than two years.
The individual deposits in the national banks February 14,
1908, were $38,298,000 and the individual deposits in national
banks on June 23, 1909, were $38,111,000, showing a gain in the
state-bank deposits in seventeen months of over $30,000,000 and
a loss in national-bank deposits o f $186,000.
Seventy-three national banks, however, during this period
were converted into state banks with dejHisits approximating
$7,300,000, so that this item must be considered in comparing
the two systems.
20883— 8760
10
The number of state banks has increased from 470, February
29, 1908, to 662 banks. The number of national banks has de
creased from 312 to 222 banks, June 23, 1909.
In this short time the state banks from exceeding the national
banks in number by about 5 0 per cent now exceed the national
banks in number by about 300 per cent.
The increase in individual deposits in the state banks be
tween June 23, 1909, and November 16, 1909, was $7,052,505.84,
a very remarkable showing, considering that in September the
serious bank failure o f the Columbia Bank and Trust Company,
a state bank at Oklahoma City, with deposits approximating
three millions. Notwithstanding this failure, the individual de
posits of the state banks increased from September 1 to No
vember 16, 1909, $4,998,173.96.
The average reserve held by the Oklahoma state banks June
23, 1909, was 42.3 per cent—a higher reserve than that of any
of the national banks of any State in the Union, except Col
orado. And on November 16, 1909, the average reserve held by
the Oklahoma state banks was 49.7 {)er cent—a reserve about as
great as the average reserve of the Bank of England—and
offering a favorable comparison with the Treasury of the United
States, as against its outstanding liabilities.
Mr. President, the State of Oklahoma has the best banking
system in the United States; it is a model for the balance of the
United States. It protects the small depositor and gives him
confidence, and when there is a loss due to mismanagement the
loss is distributed in such a manner that it is not felt by any
of the banks contributing. It is, after all, merely a mutual
insurance plan.
And this is the banking system, Mr. President, which is criti
cised by the American Banking Association as unsound, and as
a reckless banking system. It is precisely the contrary. It has
promoted stability, a high reserve, and banking of the highest
order.
The confidence of the people of Oklahoma in this improved
banking system is shown by the deposits of the people in
creasing nearly 200 per cent in less than two years. The pref
erence of the people to this banking system over the national
banking system is clearly manifested by this extraordinary
mark of their confidence in making their deposits. The na
tional banks gained but a small per cent, comparatively, on an
average, and the state banks gained nearly 2 0 0 per cent in this
Short period of time.
This development of confidence is reflected in the marvelous
growth of our towns and cities in Oklahoma, which are growing
as rapidly as these astonishing deposits. Let States and cities
who want to learn the secret of confidence, of stability, and of
rapid development come to Oklahoma and learn the lesson from
her wise and virtuous laws.
Mr. President, I had the privilege o f establishing the first
national bank in Indian Territory, and caused the extension of
the national-bank act to that Territory which afterwards be
came Oklahoma. My personal interests have been, and are now,
almost exclusively in the national banks. The national bank
ing system is splendidly administered; it is worthy of all honor
and credit. Those banks are thoroughly deserving of the confi
dence of the depositors of the country, and I should like to see
the national banks enjoy the full prosperity to which they are
29883— 8760
11
entitled. During the ten years preceding the last panic the
loss to the national-bank depositors did not exceed $ 1 i>er an
num outvof exceeding $60,000 dollars of deposits. The abrasion
of gold coin in the pockets of the people would greatly exceed
this. It is a wonderful record of fidelity and of sound adminis
tration. Yet, notwithstanding this high tribute to the national
banking system, we can not forget that a failure such as that
of the National Bank of Commerce, of Kansas City, involving
a bank whose deposits amounted to thirty-five millions, shook
the confidence of the depositors contributing to this bank in
twelve or fifteen States. The Walsh failure, in Chicago, served
a like harmful purpose in the region of the Great Lakes.
The Morse-Heinze failures in New York shook the confidence of the depositors on the Atlantic seaboard. These fail
ures could have been easily prevented by the guaranty fund
plan. It may be true that the depositors under this system
may have lost nothing through the National Bank of Com
merce nor through the Walsh failure, but they had their
money tied up; they could not get their deposits when they
wanted them, and the consequence is the statistical argument
is not satisfying to the ordinary depositor, while it may be
persuasive to the statesman who is not consideiing the subject
from the standpoint of a depositor.
Our national-bank act should be amended, and amended im
mediately. It would cost the Government of the United States
nothing whatever to provide this mutual insurance plan for
the depositors of the national banks, and every State in the
Union would immediately follow suit.
This system would give to the people of the United States
freedom from financial disturbance, freedom from commercial
disturbance. When the banks are disturbed every business
man in the country is disturbed, for all of our business men
are both borrowers and depositors.
A brilliant example of the stability obtained by the mutual
insurance plan was shown in the failure o f the Columbia Bank
and Trust Company at Oklahoma City, a state institution, with
about $3,000,000 of deposits. If this had been a national bank
and these deposits had been tied up, to be ultimately paid after
the bank assets were liquidated, involving from two to five
vears it would have left a harvest of distrust. As it was, the
depositors were promptly paid; they immediately redeposited
their funds with other banks, and the state banks gained
$4 998,000 of deposits from September 1 to November 10, } ->0.),
in two months and a half, showing that the confidence of the
people was not impaired by the failure of the Columbia Bank
and Trust Company. The people were not hurt by it. lh e
banks of Oklahoma City were not thrown into a panic by i t ;
the commerce of Oklahoma City suffered no serious embarrass
ment and no shock; the banks did not force their clients to pay
up under pressure, but the business of the community remained
undisturbed, and the value of the Oklahoma bank system was
triumphantly vindicated and its great worth demonstrated in a
manner which should forever silence the criticism of those who
prophesied evil of it, and who desire to deal fairly, frankly,
and justly with this economic question.
, . ___.
The bank mutual-insurance plan by the guaranty fund is pieferable to the postal savings system, because the banks can
29883— 8760
12
afford to pay a higher rate of interest than the Government
offers through the postal savings plan.
It avoids increasing the governmental activities or offices and
leaves the people to manage their own business without increase
o f government expense or supervision, beyond the present
supervision o f the comptroller.
The postal savings bank is but another form o f the guaranty
o f bank deposits. It is an unlimited but justifiable guaranty
by the United States.
If the guaranty of bank deposits can not be established, then
as an alternative I approve of the postal savings-bank system
under the amendments accepted by the Senator from Montana,
as set forth in the reprints of this bill, under date of February
3, 1910. This system will not take money away from the small
communities to concentrate such funds in the large financial
centers, but will be an important auxiliary to the state banks
and to the national banks, by adding to their deposits those
funds which would not be deposited at all, unless such de
posits were properly guaranteed. The guaranty of the United
States of these deposits will bring from hiding many millions
of dollars, which will be immediately redeposited in the local
banks. Under this system the unreasoning panic and want
o f confidence, which has heretofore caused bank depositors to
withdraw currency for hoarding, will be prevented. It may
not entirely prevent the occasional withdrawal for hoarding by
wealthy manipulators, who occasionally lock up currency for
speculative purposes in order to depress the stock market and
take advantage of such depression as buyers o f depressed
stocks, but it will make the country outside of the influence
o f the rich manipulators incapable of being stampeded by the
cry of panic, and will go far to give stability to our national
commerce, a consummation devoutly to be wished.
The postal savings bill should add to our national banking
capital several thousand millions of dollars, because every dol
lar of currency brought from hiding means approximately
$ 1 0
o f deposits and $ 1 0 of loans, the ratio of currency to
deposits in the national banks of the United States being at
least 10 to 1, as will appear from the reports of the Comptroller
o f the Currency.
If we can not have the depositors’ guaranty plan, I should
approve the postal savings bill as now drawn.
Mr. President, I can not acquiesce in the suggestion that the
postal savings bill violates the Constitution of the United States,
for the reason that I regard the postal savings system as a
legitimate extension of the postal service.
The Constitution of the United States was established by the
people of the United States, and was ratified by the people of
the various States acting through their constituted authority,
and was drawn, as its preamble declares:
In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domes
tic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and so forth.
And the idea of promoting the general welfare runs like a
golden thread throughout the entire Constitution, giving life
and vitality to clauses which require interpretation in the light
o f this national puri>ose.
While I do not believe that section 8 , Article I, which provides
for the laying and collecting of taxes, could be construed to
2 9 8 8 3 — 87G0
13
apply to any and all objects beyond this obvious and manifest
purpose o f the raising of taxes, I do believe that the Constitu
tion of the United States, authorizing the establishment o f the
postal system, providing for the establishment of post-offices
and post-roads, is not extended unduly when it embraces the
postal savings system. In its primary establishment it was nec
essarily crude, but by the common consent of all of the people
of the United States it has been gradually extended without
protest, without conflict, without challenge on the part o f any
one that it was a violation o f the Constitution of the United
States as it has been expanded.
For example, in the matter of issuing money orders, a citizen
goes to a post-office, deposits his money in the post-office, re
ceives a postal money order payable either to himself or to
his order. It becomes, in effect, a bill of exchange, to be cashed
by the post-office in any part o f the United States. It is, in fact,
a banking transaction. It is making the post-office a place of
deposit. It is making the post-office a place where deposits are
paid, and the extension of the postal savings system, in the man
ner proposed in this bill, is only an enlargement providing that
these transactions shall be limited to a fixed amount and shall
bear interest. Mr. President, since the consent o f the governed
is the best evidence o f the justification o f government and since
the Republican party, through its national platform, has de
clared in favor of the postal savings-bank system, and since the
Democratic party has made the same declaration through its
platform, and since the people o f the United States, from the
Atlantic to the Pacific, have voted for candidates upon those
two platforms, I take it there never was a proposition brought
before the Congress that had a more universal acquiescence
of the people in its constitutionality. I therefore take it that
it is not outside of the grant of constitutional power to extend
the postal system so as to include the postal savings plan, be
cause it is a reasonable expansion of the conveniences of the
post-offices established under the Constitution and because such
expansion is universally approved by the people of the United
States.
More than that, Mr. President, since the postal savings plan
is of the greatest importance in preventing panics in this coun
try, by providing a safe place o f deposit, by taking care of those
depositors who are the most timid o f any, and who always con
stitute a menace to the banks of the country by precipitating
runs on the banks because of their fears, and since this system
will be an important factor in preventing financial panic, the
postal savings system will be an agency o f the United States in
regulating commerce between the States and preventing its
paralysis by panic.
By preventing panic it will serve also as an agency of govern
ment in regulating the value of money or its purchasing power.
I have heretofore shown that money in times of panic has twice
the purchasing power which it has in times of financial pros
perity.
I take it that both parties in the United States, through their
representatives in national convention believed the postal sav
ings system to be constitutional, otherwise both parties in
the United States would not have committed themselves to the
postal savings system, and therefore it is in order to justify
this legislation, outside o f constitutional considerations, by say29883— 8760
ing that it would promote the providence of the people, their
economy, their thrift. Outside of the constitutional argument,
this legislation is justified because it will bring from hiding
immense hoards of banking capital and will add greatly to our
financial strength and to our commercial power as a nation.
Every other civilized nation in the world has adopted it
Gladstone declared that it was the most important act of his
long life to have promoted this system in the British Empire.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I should give my adherence
to this bill in the event that the Senate does not accede to the
plan proi>osed for the strengthening of the national banks,
which I should like to see done in any contingency, and I shall
at the proper moment offer such an amendment to the consid
eration and vote of the Senate, after it shall have been dis
posed of by the vote of the Senate, as a proposed substitute.
A P P E N D IX .
Statutes of the State of Oklahoma.
C h a p t e r VI.
BANKS AND BANKING.
A r t ic l e I. Organization.
A r t ic l e II. Banking board— guaranty fund.
A r t ic l e III. Bank commissioner.
A r t ic l e I.
O RG AN IZA TIO N .
An act relating to banks and banking and declaring an emergency, as
amended by laws of 1909, senate bill 39, same being a Dill entitled
“ An act to amend chapter 6 of the Session Laws of Oklahoma, 1 9 0 7 -8 ,
relating to banks and banking, and declaring an emergency,” taking
effect March 11, 1909.
S ec . 278. Three persons may organize a bank procedure. Any three
or more persons, approved bv the bank commissioner, a majority of
whom shall be residents of this State, may execute articles of incor
poration and be incorporated as a banking corporation in the manner
hereinafter provided.
Said articles of incorporation shall contain the
corporate name adopted by the corporation, which shall not be the same
name used by any corporation previously organized, or any limitation
of such name ; the place where its business is to be conducted; the pur
pose for which it is form ed; the amount of its capital stock, which
shall be divided into shares of the par value of $ 10 0 each ; the name
and place of residence of and number of shares subscribed by each
stockholder: and the names of the stockholders selected to act as the
first board of directors, each of whom shall be a bona fide holder of at
least $500 of the stock of said hank, fully paid and not hypothecated;
the length of time the corporation is to exist, which shall not exceed
twenty-five years ; and such other matters not inconsistent with law as
the incorporators mav deem proper. Said articles of incorporation shall
be subscribed bv at least three of the stockholders of the proposed
banking corporation, and shall be acknowledged by them and filed in
the office of the secretary of state and a copy thereof, duly certified by
the secretary of state, shall be filed with the bank commissioner.
Ihe
secretary of state shall issue a certificate in the form provided by law
for other corporations, and the existence of such bank as a corporation
shall date from the filing of its articles of incorporation and the issu
ance of certificate of the secretary of state, from which time it shall
have and mav exercise the powers conferred by law upon corporations
generally, except as limited or modified by this a c t : Provided. That
such bank shall transact no business except the election of officers and
the taking and approving of their official bonds, the receipt of payments
on account of subscriptions of Its capital stock, and such other busi
ness as is incidental to its organization until It shall have been author
ized by the bank commissioner to commence the business of banking as
hereinafter provided.
. . . .
...
... ,
S e c 279 Conditions precedent to doing business : W hen the capital
stock of any bank shall have been paid up the president or cashier
thereof shall transmit to the bank commissioner a verified statement
showing the names and places of residence of the stockholders, the
amount of stock subscribed, and* the amount paid In by each, and the
29883— 8760
15
bank commissioner shall thereupon have the same power to examine
into the condition and affairs of such hank as if it had before that time
been engaged in the banking business ; and if the commissioner is satis
fied that such hank has been organized as prescribed by law, and that
its capital is fully paid, and that it has in all respects complied with
the law, he shall issue to such bank, under his hand and seal, a certifi
cate showing that it has been organized, and its capital paid in as
required by law, and is authorized to transact a general banking busi
ness : Provided, That in the reorganization of a bank or trust com
pany the assets may be accepted in lieu of cash at their actual value.
S e c . 2 8 0 . Amount of deposit— in terest: A banking corporation organ
ized under the provisions of this act shall be permitted to receive money
on deposit not to exceed ten times the amount of its paid-up capital and
surplus, deposits of other banks not included, and to pay interest
thereon not to exceed the rate that may from time to time be fixed by
the bank commissioner, as the maximum rate that may be paid upon
deposits by banks in this S ta te ; to buy and sell, exchange, gold, silver,
coin, bullion, uncurrent money, bonds of the United States, or of this
State, or of any city, county, school district, or other municipal cor
poration thereof, and state, county, city, township, school district, or
other municipal indebtedness; to lend money on chattel and personal
security, or on real estate secured by first mortgages, running not
longer than one year : Provided, That such real-estate loans shall not
exceed 20 per cent of the aggregate loans of any such b an k ; to own a
suitable building, furniture and fixtures, for the transaction of its busi
ness, the value of which shall not exceed one-third of the capital of
such bank fully paid : Provided, That nothing in this section shall pro
hibit such bank from holding and disposing of such real estate as it
may acquire through the collection of debts due i t : And provided fur
ther, That all banking institutions now organized as corporations doing
business in this State are hereby permitted to continue said business as
at present incorporated, but in all other respects their business, and the
manner of conducting the same and the operation of said bank, shall be
carried on subject to the laws of this State and in accordance there
with : And provided further, That no bank, except those that have com
plied with or that may be organized under the laws of this State relat
ing to trust companies, shall engage in any business other than is
authorized by this act. And whenever it shall appear from the preced
ing-year reports made by such banking corporation that the total depos
its are more than ten times the amount of its paid-up capital and sur
plus, deposits of other banks not included, the bank commissioner shall
have power and it shall be his duty to require such bank within thirty
days to increase its capital or surplus to conform to the provisions of
this act or cease to receive deposits.
S e c . 2 8 1 . Amount of capital— grades: That hereafter the capital
stock, which shall be fully paid up, shall not be less than $ 10,000 in
towns having 5 0 0 inhabitants or le s s ; the capital stock, which shall
be fully paid up, shall not be less than $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 in towns having more
than 5 0 0 inhabitants and not more than 1 ,5 0 0 inhabitants; the capital
stock, which shall be fully paid up, shall not be less than $ 2 5 ,0 0 0 in
cities and towns having more than 1 ,5 0 0 inhabitants and less than
6,000 inhabitants; the capital stock, which shall be fully paid up,
shall not be less than $ 5 0 ,0 0 0 in cities having more than 6 ,0 0 0 in
habitants and less than 20,000 inhabitants; the capital stock, which
shall be fully paid up, shall not be less than $ 100,000 in cities having
more than 20,000 inhabitants.
S e c . 2 8 2 . Capital stock may be increased, or decreased, subject to
approval of com missioner: The capital stock of any banking associa
tion doing business under the laws of this State may be increased or
decreased at any time by resolution adopted by three-fourths of its
stockholders at any regular meeting or at a special meeting called for
that purpose, of which all stockholders shall have due notice in the
manner provided by the by-laws of such banking association.
A cer
tificate must be filed with the bank commissioner by the chairman and
secretary of the meeting, and by a majority of all the directors, show
ing the compliance of the provisions of this section, the amount to
which the capital stock has been increased or decreased, the amount
of stock represented at the meeting, and the vote upon the question to
increase or decrease the capital stock. No such changes in the capital
stock of any such association shall be valid or binding until the same
shall have been approved by the bank commissioner.
No increase of
the capital stock shall be approved until the amount thereof shall
have been paid in cash : Provided, however. That such increased capital
may, when authorized by all the stockholders of said bank, be paid in
whole or part from its surplus or undivided profits.
Whenever the
capital stock of any bank shall be decreased as provided in this sec
tion, each stockholder, owner, or holder of any stock certificate shall
29883— 8760
16
surrender the same for cancellation, and shall he entitled to receive a
new certificate for his proportion of the new stock.
No decrease of
the capital stock of any such bank shall be approved unless such bank
with reduced capital shall be entirely solvent, and no reduction in capi
tal stock shall be approved to an amount less than is authorized by
section 2 of this article (2 7 9 ).
Whenever the capital stock of any
bank shall be increased or decreased, as provided in this section, and
the same shall have been approved by the commissioner, a certificate
signed by the president and cashier of the bank, setting forth the
amount of stock held by each stockholder, shall be filed with the secre
tary of state, with the bank commissioner, and with the corporation
commission.
S e c . 2 8 3 . Bank to be under control of board of directors : The affairs
and business of any banking association organized under the laws of
this State shall be managed or controlled by a board of directors of not
less than three nor more than thirteen in number, who shall be selected
from the stockholders, at such time and in such manner as may be pro
vided by the by-laws of the association. No person shall be eligible to
serve as director of any bank organized or existing under the laws
of this State unless he shall be a bona fide owner of $500 of the stock
of such bank, fully paid and not hypothecated. Any director, officer, or
other person who shall participate in any violation of the laws of this
State, relative to banks and banking, shall be liable for all damages
which the said bank, its stockholders, depositors, or creditors shall sus
tain in consequence of such violation.
The board shall select from
among their number the president and secretary, and shall select from
among their stockholders a cashier.
Such officers shall hold their
offices for the term of one year and until their successors are elected
and qualified.
The board shall require the cashier and any and all
officers having the care of the funds of the bank to give a good and
sufficient hond, to be approved by them, and held by the state banking
board. The board of directors shall hold at least two regular meetings
each year, and at such meetings a thorough examination of the books,
records, funds, and securities held by the bank shall be made and
recorded in detail upon its record book and a certified copy thereof
shall be forwarded to the bank commissioner and to each stockholder
of record within ten days.
S e c . 284. Removal of officers: Any officer of a bank found by the
bank commissioner to be dishonest, reckless, or incompetent shall be
removed from office by the board of directors of the bank of which he
is an officer on the written order of the bank commissioner.
S e c . 285. Penalty for any violation of la w : The violation of any
of the provisions of this act by the officers or directors of any bank
organized or existing subject to the laws of this State shall be suf
ficient cause to subject the said bank to be closed and liquidated by the
bank commissioner and for the annulment of its charter.
S e c . 286. Liability of stockholders : The shareholders of every bank
organized under this act shall be additionally liable for the amount
of stock owned, and no more.
S e c . 287. Limitation to investm ent: No bank shall employ its moneys,
directly or indirectly, in trade or commerce by buying or selling
goods, chattels, wares, or merchandise, and shall not invest any of
its funds in the stock of any other bank or incorporation, nor make
any loans or discount on the security of the shares of its own capital
stock, nor be the purchaser or holder of any such shares, unless such
securities or purchase shall be necessary to prevent loss upon a debt
previously contracted in good faith, and stock so purchased or acquired
shall, within six months from the time of its purchase, be sold or
disposed of at public or private sale ; after the expiration of six months,
any such stock shall not be considered as part of the assets of any
b a n k : Provided, That it may sell any personal property which may
come into its possession as collateral security for any debt or obli
gation due it, upon posting a notice in five public place's in the county
wherein the property is to be sold, at least ten days before the time
therein specified for such sale, and which said notice shall contain the
name of the bank and the name of the pledgor, the date of the pledge,
the nature of the default and the amount claimed to be due thereon
at the date of the notice, a description of the pledged property to be
sold and the time and place of sale.
S e c . 288. Reserve required— Depositories— Penalty— Savings associa
tions : Every bank doing business under the laws of this State shall
have on hand at all times in available funds the following sums, to
w i t : Banks located in towns or cities having a population of less than
2,500 persons, an amount equal to 20 per cent of their entire deposits:
banks located in cities having over 2,500 population, an amount equal
to 25 per cent of their entire deposits; two-thirds of such amounts may
consist of balances due to them from good, solvent banks, selected from
29883— 8760
IT
time to time with the approval of the bank commissioner, and one-third
shall consist of actual cash : Provided. That any bank that has been
made the depository for the reserve of any other bank or banks shall
have on hand at all times in the manner provided herein 25 per cent
of its deposits.
Whenever the available funds in any bank shall be
below the required amount, such bank shall not increase its liabilities
by making any new loans or discounts otherwise than the discounting
or purchasing bills of exchange payable at sight, nor make any dividends
of its profits until the required proportion between the aggregate amount
of its deposits and its lawful money reserve has been restored; and the
bank commissioner shall notify any hank whose lawful money reserve
shall be below the amount required to be kept on hand to make good
such reserve, and if such hank or association shall fail to do so for a
period of thirty days after such notice, it shall he deemed to be insolvent, and the bank commissioner shall take possession of the same and
proceed in the manner provided in this act relating to insolvent bank s;
the bank commissioner may refuse to consider, as a part of its re
serve, balance due to any bank from any other bank association which
shall refuse or neglect to furnish him with such information as he may
require from time to time relating to its business with any other hank
doing business under this act, which shall enable him to determine its
solvency : Provided, That all savings associations which do not transact
a general banking business shall be required to keep on hand at all
times in actual cash a sum equal to 10 per cent of their deposits, and
shall be required to keep a like sum invested in good bonds of the
United States or state, county, school district, or municipal bonds of
the State of Oklahoma, worth not less than par.
S e c . 289. Limit to liabilities to any bank : The total liabilities to any
bank of any person, company, corporation, or firm for monev borrowed,
including in the liabilities of the company or firm the liabilities of the
several members thereof, shall not at any time exceed 20 per cent of the
capital stock of such bank, actually paid in, but the discount of bills of
exchange drawn in good faith against actual existing values as collateral
security and a discount of commercial or business paper actually owned
by the person shall not be considered as money borrowed.
S e c . 290. Penalty for making a false report : Every officer, director,
agent, or clerk of any bank doing business under the'law s of the State
of Oklahoma who willfully and knowingly subscribes to or makes any
false report or any false statement or entries in the book of such banks,
or knowingly subscribes to or exhibits any false writing on paper with
the intent to deceive any person as to the condition of such bank, shall
be deemed guilty of a felony, and shall be punished by a fine not. to
exceed $ 1,00 0 or by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding
five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
S e c . 291. Officers prevented from borrowing from bank: It shall be
unlawful for any active managing officer of any bank organized or ex
isting under the laws of this State to borrow, directly or indirectly,
money from the bank with which to loan to any of said persons, as well
as the person receiving the same, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny
of the amount borrowed.
'
S e c . 292. Insolvent bank prevented from receiving deposits— pen
alty : No bank shall accept or receive on deposit, with or without inter
est, any money, bank bills or notes, or United States Treasury notes,
gold or silver certificates, or currency, or other notes, bills, checks, or
drafts, when such bank is in solven t: and any officer, director, cashier,
manager, member, party, or managing party of any bank who shall
knowingly violate the provisions of this section, or be accessory to or
permit or connive at the receiving or accepting of any such deposit, shall
be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by
a fine not exceeding $5,000, or by imprisonment in the penitentiary not
exceeding five years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
S e c . 290. None but banks and trust companies to receive deposits :
It shall be unlawful for any individual, firm, or corporation to receive
money upon deposit or transact a banking business except as author
ized by this act, or by the laws relating to trust companies. Any per
son violating any provisions of this section, either individually or as
an interested party, in any association or corporation, shall be guilty
of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum
not less than $300 nor more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the
county jail not less than thirty days nor more than one year, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
S e c . 294. Reports, quarterly, published : Every bank shall make at
least four reports each year, and oftener if called upon, to the bank
commissioner, according to the form which may be prescribed by him,
verified by the oath or affirmation of the president or cashier of such
association and attested by the signatures of at least two of the di
rectors. Each such report shall exhibit in detail and under the appro-
29883—8760------2
'"'s
nriate heads the resources and liabilities of the association at the close
of business on any past day by him specified, and shall be transmitted
to the bank commissioner within ten days after the receipt of a request
or requisition therefor by him, and shall be published in the same form
in which it is made to the bank commissioner within ten days after
the same is made in a newspaper published in the county in which
such bank is established, for two insertions, at the expense of the bank ;
and such proof of publication shall be furnished within five days after
date of last publication as may be required by the bank commissioner.
The bank commissioner shall also have power to call for special reports from any bank whenever, in his judgment, the same are neces
sary in order to gain a full and complete knowledge of its condition:
Provided, The reports authorized and lequired by this secton to be
called for by the bank commissioner shall relate to a date prior to the
date of such call, to be specified therein
„o i x . a
S ec . 295. Dividends to be reported: In addition to the reports re
quired by the preceding sections, each bank doing business under this
act shall, within ten days after the declaring of any dividends, for
ward to the bank commissioner a statement of the amount of such divi
dend and the amount carried to the surplus and undivided profit
accounts, and shall forward to the bank commissioner within ten days
after the 1st of January in each year, in such form as he may designate,
a verified statement showing the receipts and disbursements of such
bank for the preceding year.
Sec 296. Penalty for failure to make rep ort: Every hank which fails
to make and transmit or to publish any report required under either of
the two preceding sections shall be subject to a penalty of f pO for each
dav after the period respectively therein mentioned that it delays to
make and transmit its report or the proof of publication
Whenever any
bank delays or refuses to pay the penalty herein imposed for a failure to
make and transmit or to publish a report, the commissioner is hereby
authorized to maintain an action in the name of the State against the
delinquent bank for the recovery of such penalty, and all sums collected
by such action shall be paid into the treasury of the state banking
0 9 7 Banks may voluntarily place their affairs in hands of com
missioner •' Any bank doing business under this act may place its affairs
nnil assets under the control of the bank commissioner by posting a
notice on its front door as follow s: “ This bank is in the hands of
the state bank commissioner." The posting of such not ce or the taking
possession of anv bank by the bank commissioner shall be sufficient to
Diace all of its assets and property of whatever nature in the possession
of the bank commissioner and shall operate as a bar to any attachm6S f c PF2 98^B an k s may voluntarily liquidate : Any bank doing business
under this act mav voluntarily liquidate by paying off all its depositors
in full and upon filing a verified statement with the bank commissioner
setting forth the fact that all its liabilities have been paid and the sur
rendering of its certificate of authority to transact a banking business,
it X .11 cease to be subject to the provisions of this act and may con
tinue to tm nsact a loan and discount business under its charter : Pro
vided That the bank commissioner shall make an examination of any
such ’bank for the purpose of determining that all its liabilities have
b ea«cPa299 Banks— when deemed insolvent: A bank shall be deemed to
be insolvent, first, when the actual cash market value of its assets is
insufficient to pav its liabilities ; second, when it is unable to meet the
demands of its creditors in the usual and customary m anner; third,
when it shall fail to make good its reserve as required by law
S ec 300 Dividends and surplus funds— declared when: The direct
ors or owners of any bank doing business under this act may declare
dividends of so much of the net profits of their bank as they shall judge
expedient but each bank shall before the declaration of a dividend,
carry not less than one-tenth of its net profits since the last preceding
dividend to its surplus fund, until the same shall amount to oO per
c e n t of its capital stock: Provided, That such dividends, if any. shall
he declared on the first day of January and the first day of July of
each year, and it shall be reported to the bank commissioner on forms
prescribed by^Wm^ charge(] tQ surphls account: Any losses sustained
by anv bank in excess of its undivided profits may be charged to its
surplus account: Provided, That its surplus fund shal thereafter be
reimbursed from its earnings, and no dividend shall be declared or
paid by any such bank until its surplus fund shall be fully restored to
*tSSEC
n\Yhen dividends may be declared: No bank officer or di
rector thereof shall, during the time it shall continue its banking op-
29883— 8760
19
erations, withdraw or permit to be withdrawn, either in the form of
dividends or otherwise, any portion of its capital.
If losses have been
at any time sustained by such bank equal to or exceeding its undi
vided profits then on hand, no dividend shall be made, and no divi
dend shall be declared by any bank while it continues its banking
business to any amount greater than its profits on hand, deducting
therefrom its losses, to be ascertained by a careful estimate of the
actual cash value of all its assets at the time of making such dividends,
in e present worth of all maturing paper shall be estimated at the
usual discount rate of the bank. Nothing in this section shall prevent
the reduction of the capital stock of any bank in the manner prescribed
herein.
S ec . 303. Tenalty for any bank official to fail to. perform duties:
“ Very banker, officer, employee, director, or agent of any bank who shall
neglect to perform any duty required by this act, or who shall fail to
conform to any lawful requirements made by the bank commissioner,
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall
bo punished by a fine not to exceed $ 1 ,0 0 0 , or by imprisonment in the
penitentiary not to exceed five years, or by both such fine and im
prisonment.
S ec . 304 Rewards may be offered and p a id : The state banking
board shall have power to offer and pay out of the depositors’ guaranty
fund, under such conditions as it may deem proper, and not to exceed
the sum of $500 in any one case, rewards for the arrest and conviction
or any officer, agent, director, or employee of any bank charged with
violating any of the laws of this State relating to banks and banking
for which a criminal penalty is provided, or for the arrest and con
viction of any person charged with stealing, with or without force, any
money, property, or thing of value of any bank.
S e c . 305 Certified checks must be drawn— how : It shall be unlawful
for any officer, clerk or agent of any bank doing business under this
act to certify any check, draft, or order drawn upon the bank unless
the person, firm, or corporation drawing such check, draft, or order has
on deposit with the bank at the time such check, draft, or order is
certified an amount of money equal to the amount specified in such
check. Any check, draft, or order so certified by the duly authorized
officer shall be a good and valid obligation against any such bank, but
the officer, clerk, or agent of any bank violating the provisions of this
section shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall
be punished as provided in this act.
S e c . 306. Penalty for embezzlement: Every president, director, cashier,
teller, clerk, officer, or agent of any bank who embezzles, abstracts or
willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds, securities, or credits of
the bank, or who issues or puts forth any certificate of deposit, draws
any draft or bill of exchange, makes any acceptance, assigns any note,
bond, ,draft, bill of exchange, mortgage, judgment, or decree, or who
makes use of the bank in any manner with intent in either ca^e to
injure or defraud the bank or any individual, person, company or
corporation, or to deceive any officer of the bank, and any person who
with like intent, aids or abets any officer, clerk, or agent'in any viola
tion of this section, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon con
viction thereof shall be punished as provided in this act.
S e c . 307. Penalty to pay overdrafts: Any bank officer or employee
who shall pay out the funds of any bank upon the check, order, or draft
of any individual, firm, corporation, or association which has not on
deposit with such bank a sum equal to such check, order, or draft
shall be personally liable to such bank for the amount so paid, and
such liabilities shall be covered by his official bond.
S ec . 308. Banks may borrow m oney: No bank, banker, or bank
official shall give preference to any depositor or creditor by pledging
the assets of the bank as collateral security: Provided, That any bank
may borrow money for temporary purposes, not to exceed in amount 50
per cent of its paid-up capital, and may pledge assets of the bank as
collateral security th erefor: Provided further, That whenever it shall
appear that a bank is borrowing habitually for the purpose of reloan
ing the bank commissioner may require such bank to pay off such bor
rowed money. Nothing herein shall prevent any bank from rediscount
ing in good faith and indorsing any of its negotiable notes.
S e c . 309. Impairment of capital sto c k : Whenever it shall appear
that the capital of any bank doing business under this act had become
impaired the bank commissioner shall notifv such bank to make such
impairment good within sixty days, and it shall be the duty of the
officers and directors of any bank receiving such notice from the bank
commissioner to immediately call a special meeting of its stockholders
for the purpose of levying an assessment upon its stockholders sufficient
to cover the requirements of its capital stock : Provided, That such
bank, if not insolvent, may reduce its capital stock to the extent of such
29883— 8760
'<■
20
impairment, if such reduction will not place its capital below the
amount required by this a c t : And provided further, That the bank shall
have a prior lien upon the stock of each individual shareholder to the
* extent of such assessment, and upon the failure of any such stock
holder to pay the assessment authorized by this section within the time
fixed by the bank commissioner for making good said impairment said
lien may be foreclosed and the stock of such delinquent stockholder
sold by giving public notice of the time and place of such sale, and of
the stock to be sold, by advertisement for fifteen days in some news
paper of general circulation published in the county where such bank is
located.
S ec
310. National banks may become state b an k s: Any national
bank doing business in this State may incorporate as a state bank, as
provided herein for the organization of banks : Provided, That the bank
commissioner may accept good assets of such national bank worth not
less than par in lieu of cash payment for the stock of such state bank.
S e c . 311. Bank to keep list of its shareholders: The president and
cashier of every incorporated bank shall cause to be kept at all times
a full and correct list of the names and residences of all the share
holders in the bank and the number of shares held by each in the office
where its business is transacted. Such list shall be subject to the in
spection of all the shareholders and creditors of the bank and the
oflicers authorized to assess taxes under the state authority during
business hours of each day in which business may be legally transacted.
A copy of such list on the first Monday in January of each year, verified
by the oath of such president or cashier, shall be transmitted to the
bank commissioner.'
S e c . 312. Commissioner may revoke charter of any bank for cau se:
Whenever an officer of the bank shall refuse to submit the books, papers,
and effects of such bank to the inspection of the commissioner or his
assistant, or shall in any manner obstruct or interfere with him in the
discharge of his duties, or refuse to be examined on oath touching the
affairs of the bank, the commissioner may revoke the authority of such
bank to transact a banking business and proceed to wind up its business.
S e c . 313. When real estate may be purchased and s o ld : Any officer
of any bank whose authority to transact a banking business has been
revoked, as herein provided, who shall receive or cause to be received
any deposit of whatsoever nature after such revocation, shall be subject
to the same penalty provided for persons transacting a banking business
without authority.
S e c . 314. Real estate— -How conveyed : A bank may purchase, hold,
and convey real estate for the following purposes: First, such as shall
be necessary for the convenient transaction of its business, including
Its furniture and fixtures, but which shall not exceed one-third of the
paid-in c a p ita l; second, such as shall be conveyed to it in satisfaction
of debts previously contracted in the course of its business; third, such
as it shall purchase at sale under judgment, decree, or mortgage fore
closures under securities held by i t ; but a bank shall not bid at any
such sale a larger amount than enough to satisfy its debts and costs.
Real estate shall be conveyed under the corporate seal of the bank and
the hands of its president or vice-president and cashier.
No real
estate acquired in the cases contemplated in the second and third sub
sections above shall be held for a longer time than five years. It must
be sold at a private or public sale within thirty days thereafter.
S e c . 315. Shares— Deemed personal property : The shares of stock
of an incorporated bank shall be deemed personal property, and shall
he transferred on the books of the bank in such manner as the by-laws
therefor may direct, but no transfer of stock shall be valid against a
bank or anv creditor thereof so long as the registered holder thereof
shall be liable as a principal debtor, surety, or otherwise to the bank
for any debt, nor in such cases shall any dividend, interest, or profits
be paid on said stock so long as such liabilities continue, but all such
dividends, interests, or profits shall be retained by the bank and ap
plied to the discharge of such liability, and no stock shall be trans
ferred on the books of any bank where the registered holder thereof
is in debt to the bank for any matured and unpaid obligations.
S e c . 316. Bank can not loan on its stock : It shall be unlawful for
any bank to loan its funds to its stockholders on their stock on collat
eral security, and the total Indebtedness of the stockholders of any
incorporated' bank shall at no time exceed 50 per cent of its paid-up
ca p ita l: . Provided, That any bank may hold its stock to secure a debt
previously contracted.
S e c . 317. Commissioner to preserve records: For the purpose of
carrying into effect the provisions of this act. the bank commissioner
shall provide a form for the necessary blanks for such examinations
and reports: and all examinations and reports received by him shall
be preserved in his office.
29883— 8760
21
S ec . 318. Tonally for false sw earing: Every officer or employee of a
bank required by this act to take an oath or affirmation who shall will
fully swear or affirm falsely shall be deemed guilty of perjury, and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as provided by the laws of
this State in case of perjury.
A r t ic l e II.
B A N K IN G
BOARD-----G UARANTY
FUND.
S ec . 319. State banking board— who com pose: The state banking
board shall be composed of the governor, lieutenant-governor, the presi
dent of the board of agriculture, state treasurer, and state auditor.
Said board shall have the' supervision and management of the de
positors’ guaranty fund, hereinafter provided for, and shall have power
to adopt all suitable rules and regulations not inconsistent with law
for the management and administration of the same.
.
S e c . 320. Assessment for guaranty fund : There is hereby levied an
assessment against the capital stock of each and every bank and trust
company organized or existing under the laws of this State for the
purpose of creating a depositor's guaranty fund equal to 5 per cent of
its average daily deposits during its continuance in business as a bank
ing corporation. Said assessments shall be payable one-fifth during the
first year and one-twentieth during each year thereafter until the total
amount of said 5 per cent assessment shall have been fully p a id :
Provided, however, That the assessments heretofore levied and paid by
banking corporations or trust companies now existing shall be deducted
from and credited as a payment on said 5 per cent assessment hereby
levied. The average daily deposits of each bank during the preceding
year prior to the passage and approval of this act shall be taken as the
basis for computing the amount of the first payment on the levy hereby
made. One year after the passage and approval of this act, and annu
ally thereafter, each bank and trust company doing business under the
laws of this State shall report to the bank commissioner the amount of
its average daily deposits for the preceding year, and if such deposits
are in excess of the amount upon which the first or subsequent pay
ment of the levy hereby made is computed, each bank or trust company
having such increased deposits shall immediately pay in the depositors’
guaranty fund a sum sufficient to pay any deficiency on said first or
subsequent payment, as shown by such increased deposits. After the 5
per cent assessment hereby levied shall have been fully paid up no
additional assessments shall be levied or collected against the capital
stock of any such bank or trust company, except emergency assessments
hereinafter provided, to pay the depositors of failed banks, and except
assessments as may be necessary by reason of increased deposits to
maintain such funds at 5 per cent of the aggregate of all deposits in
such banks and trust companies doing business under the laws of this
State. Whenever the depositors’ guaranty fund shall become impaired
or be reduced below said 5 per cent by reason of payments to depositors
of failed banks the state banking board shall have the power, and it
shall be their duty, to levy emergency assessments against the capital
stock of each bank and trust company doing business in this State suffi
cient to restore said impairment or reduction below 5 per c e n t; but the
aggregate of such emergency assessments shall not in any one calendar
year exceed 2 per cent of the average daily deposits of all such banks
and trust companies. If the amount realized from such emergency as
sessments shall be insufficient to pay off the depositors of all failed
banks having valid claims against said depositors' guaranty fund, the
state banking board shall issue and deliver to each depositor having
any such unpaid deposit a certificate of indebtedness for the amount of
the unpaid deposit bearing 6 per cent interest. Such certificates shall
be consecutively numbered and shall be payable upon the call of the
state banking board in like manner as state warrants are paid by the
state treasurer in the order of their issue out of the emergency' levy
thereafter made ; and the state banking board shall from year to year
levy emergency assessments as hereinbefore provided against the cap
ital stock of all banking corporations and trust companies doing busi
ness in this State until all such certificates of indebtedness, with the
accrued interest thereon, shall have been fully paid. As rapidly as the
assets of failed banks are liquidated and realized upon by the bank com
missioner the same shall be applied first after the payment of the ex
pense of liquidation to the repayment to the depositors’ guaranty fund
of all money paid out of said fund to the depositors of such failed
bank, and slinll be applied by the state banking board toward refunding
any emergency assessment levied by reason of the failure of such liqui
dated bank : Provided, further, That 75 per cent of the depositors’ guar29883— 8760
' •:
t
an tyfund shall be Invested for the benefit of said fund in state warrants
or such other securities as state funds are now required to be invested.
S ec . 320. Assessment for guaranty fund : There is hereby levied an
assessment of 1 per cent of the bank’s daily average deposits, less the
deposits of the United States, and state funds, if otherwise secured,
for the preceding year, upon each and every bank and trust companv
organized or existing under the laws of this State, for the purpose of
creating a depositors’ guaranty fund.
Said assessment shall be col
lected upon call of the state banking board.
In one year from the
time the first assessment is levied, and annually thereafter, each bank
and trust company subject to the provisions of this act shall report to
the bank commissioner the amount of its average daily deposits for the
preceding y e a r ; and if such deposits are in excess of the amount upon
which 1 per cent was previously paid, said report shall be accompanied
by additional funds to equal 1 per cent of the daily average excess of
deposits, less the deposits of the United States Government for the
year over the preceding year, and each amount shall be added to the
depositors’ guaranty fund.
If the depositors' guaranty fund is de
pleted from any cause it shall be the duty of the state banking board,
in order to keep said fund up to 1 per cent of the total deposits in all
of the said banks and trust companies subject to the provisions of this
act, to levy a special assessment to cover such deficiency, which spe
cial assessment shall be levied upon the capital stock of the banks and
trust companies subject to this act, according to the amount of their
deposits as reported in the office of the bank commissioner.
And such
special assessment shall become immediately due and payable.
S ec . 321. New banks to pay 3 per cent on capital sto c k : Bank
and trust companies organized subsequent to the enactment of this act
shall pay into the depositors' guaranty fund 3 per cent of the amount
of their capital stock when they open for business, which amount shall
constitute a credit fund, subject to adjustment on the basis of its de
posits, as provided for other banks and trust companies now existing at
the,end of one y e a r: Provided, however, That said 3 per cent payment
shall not be required of new banks and trust companies formed by the
reorganization or consolidation of banks and trust companies that have
previously complied with the terms of this act.
S ec . 322. Commissioner to close up business of insolvent bank s:
Whenever any bank or trust company organized or existing under the
laws of this State shall voluntarily place itself in the hands of the
bank commissioner, or whenever any judgment shall be rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction, adjudging and decreeing that such bank
or trust company is insolvent, or whenever its rights or franchises to
conduct a banking business under the laws of this State shall have
been adjudged to be forfeited, or whenever the bank commissioner shall
become satisfied of the insolvency of any such bank or trust company,
he may, after due examination of its affairs, take possession of said
bank or trust company and its assets and proceed to wind up its
affairs and enforce the personal liability of the stockholders, officers,
and directors.
S ec . 323. Depositors to be paid in full from guaranty fund— Lien on
a sse ts: In the event that the bank commissioner shall take possession
of any bank or trust company which is subject to the provisions of this
act, the depositors of said bank or trust companv shall be paid in f u l l ;
and when the cash available, or that can be made immediately available,
of said bank or trust company is insufficient to discharge its obligations
to depositors, the banking board shall draw from the depositors’ guar
anty fund and from additional assessments, if required, as provided in
section 2, the amount necessary to make up the deficienev, and the
State shall have for the benefit of the depositors' guaranty fund a first
lien upon the assets of said bank or trust company and all liabilities
against the stockholders, officers, and directors of said bank or trust
company against all other persons, corporations, or firms.
Such lia
bilities may be enforced by the State for the benefit of the depositors'
guaranty fund.
S ec . 324. Commisioner to take charge: The bank commission shall
take possession of the books, records, and assets of every description of
such bank or trust company, collect debts, dues, and claims belonging
to it, and upon order of the district court or judge thereof may sell or
compound all bad or doubtful debts, and on like order may sell all the
real or personal property of such bank or trust company upon such
terms as the court or judge thereof may direct, and may, if necessary,
pay the debts of such bank or trust company and enforce the liabilities
of the stockholders, officers, and directors: Provided, however, That bad
or doubtful debts as used in this section shall not include the liability
of stockholders, officers, and directors.
29833— 8760
S e c . 325. Certificate of com pliance: The bank commissioner shall
deliver to each hank or trust company that has complied with the pro
visions of this act a certificate stating that said bank or trust company
had complied with the laws of this State for the protection of bank
depositors, and that safety to its depositors is guaranteed by the de
positors’ guaranty fund of the State of Oklahoma.
Such certificate
shall be conspicuously displayed in its place of business, and said bank
or trust company may print or engrave upon its stationery and adver
tising matter words to the effect that its depositors are protected by
the depositors’ guaranty fund of the State of Oklahoma : Provided, how
ever, That hereafter all hanks operating under the guaranty law of the
State of Oklahoma shall be permitted to advertise that their deposits
are guaranteed by the depositors’ guaranty fund, but that no bank
shall be permitted to advertise its deposits as guaranteed by the State
of Oklahoma, and any bank or bank officer or employee who shall ad
vertise their deposits as guaranteed by the State of Oklahoma shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be pun
ished by a fine not exceeding $500. or by imprisonment in the county
jail for thirty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the dis
cretion of the trial court.
S e c . 326. Stockholders may repair lo ss: After the bank commissioner
shall have taken possession of any bank or trust company which is sub
ject to the provisions of this act, the stockholders thereof may repair
its credit, restore or substitute its reserves, and otherwise place it in
condition so that it is qualified to do a general banking business as be
fore it was taken possession of by the bank commissioners ; but such
bank shall not be permitted to reopen its business until the bank com
missioner, after a careful investigation of its affairs, is of the opinion
that its stockholders have complied with the laws, that the bank’s
credit and funds are in all respects repaired, and all advances, if any,
made from the depositors' guaranty fund fully repaid, its reserve re
stored or sufficiently substituted, and that it should be permitted again
to reopen for business, whereupon said bank commissioner is authorized
to issue written permission for reopening of said bank in the same
manner as permission to do business is granted after the incorporation
thereof, and thereupon said bank may be reopened to do a general bank
ing business.
S e c . 327. Guaranteed banks may become state depositories : Any bank
or trust company which has complied with the provisions of this act
shall be eligible to act as a depository of state funds, of any fund under
the control of the State or any officer thereof, upon compliance with
the laws of this State relating to the deposits of public funds.
S e c . 328. State and county depositories: Any bank duly organized
under and in compliance with the laws of this State relating to banks
and banking corporations and doing business in the State of Oklahoma,
or any national bank organized under the laws of the United States
and doing business in the State of Oklahoma, shall be qualified to be
come state and county depositories, when so designated according to
law, by giving securities by the depositing with the proper state or
county officers United States bonds or state bonds or general-fund state
warrants or state special-fund warrants, or approved county or munici
pal bonds in the State, or approved county or school district warrants
in the State, and the proper officers are hereby authorized and empow
ered to contract accordingly.
A r t ic l e III.
BANK COMMISSIONER.
S ec . 329. Commissioner to be appointed by governor: The governor
shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, a bank
commissioner, who shall hold office for the term of four years and until
his successor is appointed and qualified. No officer or employee of any
bank or any person interested as owner or stockholder of any bank shall
be eligible to the office of bank commissioner : Provided, That no person
shall be appointed as bank commissioner who shall not have had, prior
to such appointment, at least three years’ practical experience as a
banker.
S e c . 330. Commissioner to give bond : The bank commissioner shall,
before entering upon the discharge of his duties, take and subscribe
the usual oatli of office and execute to the State of Oklahoma a bond
in the sum of $25,000, with sufficient surety, for the faithful perform
ance ofTiis duty, to be approved and filed as provided by law.
S e c . 331. Banks must be examined twice each year : It shall be the
duty of the bank commissioner, or one of his assistants, to visit each
and every bank or trust company subject to the provisions of this act
29883— 8760
24
at least twice each year, and oftener if he deems it advisable, for the
purpose of making a full and careful examination and inquiry into the
condition of the affairs of such bank, and for that purpose the bank
commissioner and his assistant are hereby authorized and empowered
to administer oaths, and to examine under oath the stockholders and
directors and all officers and employees and agents of such banks, or
other persons. The commissioner shall reduce the result thereof to
writing, which shall contain a full, true, and careful statement of the
condition of such bank or trust company, and file and retain the same in
his office.
S e c . 332. Salary— positions created : The bank commissioner’s salary
shall be $2,500 per annum and traveling expenses. There is hereby
created and established eight positions, each position to be known as an
assistant to the bank commissioner, and to be filled by appointment by
the bank commissioner, subject to the approval of the governor, and
the salary of each said assistant to the bank commissioner shall be
$1,800 per annum and traveling expenses.
S e c . 333. h ee for exam ination: Each and every bank so examined
having not more than $15,000 capital stock paid in shall pay a fee of
$15 for each and every examination ; and each and every bank having
more than $15,000 capital stock paid in and not more than $25,000
Paid in shall pay a fee of $ 2 0 ; and each and every bank having more
than $25,000 capital stock paid in and not more than $40,000 capital
stock paid in shall pay a fee of $25 ; and each and every bank having
more than $40,000 capital stock paid in and not more than $50,000
capital stock paid in, shall pay a fee of $30 : and each and everv bank
having more than $50,000 capital stock paid in shall pay a fee of $35
to the commissioner.
S e c . 334. Fees to be paid into state treasury : It shall be the duty
of the bank commissioner to pay over to the treasurer of the state
banking board all fees collected by him, and said banking board shall
use the same, or so much thereof as may be necessary, in paving the
expenses incurred in making examination of banks, subject to any of the
banking laws of this State, and other expenses incurred by said banking
board m the administration of said depositors' guaranty fund
S e c . 335. Special reports may be required : The bank commissioner
shall have power at any time when he deems it necessary to call upon
any bank or trust company organized under the laws of this State, and
upon any national bank whose depositors are protected by the deposi
tors’ guaranty fund, for a report of its condition upon any given day
which is passed, or as often as the bank commissioner may deem it
necessary : Provided, That he shall require at least four such reports
during each and every calendar year. A copy of each call made by the
bank commissioner shall be mailed to each such bank.
S e c . 336. Commissioner may be removed fi;om office : Ank bank com
missioner or assistant bank commissioner who shall neglect to perform
any duty provided for by this act, or who shall make anv false state
ment concerning any bank, or who shall be guiltv of anv misconduct or
corruption in office, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guiltv of
a felony and punished in the manner provided in this act, and in addi
tion thereto shall be removed from office.
S e c . 337. County attorney to enforce law : It shall be the dutv of the
bank commissioner to inform the county attorney of the county in which
the bank is located of any violation of any of the provisions of this
act, which constitutes a misdemeanor or felonv, bv the officers, owners,
or employees of any bank, and upon receip t'o f such information the
county attorney shall institute proceedings to enforce the provisions of
this act.
S e c . 338. Repealing clause : All acts and parts of acts in conflict
herewith are hereby repealed.
S e c . 339. Rank— what constitutes : Any individual, firm, or corpora
tion who shall receive money on deposit, whether on certificates or sub
ject to check, shall be considered as doing a banking business and shall
be amenable to all the provisions of this a c t : Provided, That promissorv
notes issued for money received on deposit shall be held to be certifi
cates of deposit for the purpose of this a c t
29883—8760
o
SPEECH OF
HON. ROBERT L. OWEN
OF OKLAHOMA
IN THE
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
JUNE 9, 1910
O P P O S IN G
THE
P R O S E C U T IO N U N D E R
T H E A N T IT R U S T L A W S
OF
L A B O R IN G
M E N W H O O R G A N IZ E TO B E T T E R T H E
C O N D IT IO N S
OF L AB O R
»•"
W ASHINGTON
1910
50527-9304
STEECII
OF
HON'. E O B E E T L. O W E N .
The Senate being In Committee of the Whole and having under con
sideration the bill (H . R. 25552) making appropriations for sundry
civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1011, and for other purposes—
Mr. OWEN said:
Mr. P resident : I desire to express my regret that the com
mittee should have struck out the proviso of the House bill
which provided that the appropriation of $2 0 0 , 0 0 0 should not be
used in prosecuting labor organizations under the antitrust
jaws. The House proviso reads:
That no part of this money shall be spent in the prosecution of any
organization or individual for entering into any combination or agree
ment having in view the increasing of wages, shortening of hours or
bettering the condition of labor or for any act done in furtherance
thereof not in itself unlawful.
That does seem to me to be the description o f a most inno
cent form of organization, and surely such organizations or
their legitimate objects could not be within the purpose of the
statute of the United States to forbid the formation of great
trust organizations to monopolize trade in this country. The
antitrust law is intended to prevent great combinations of
capital from depriving men of their just rights.
It is true that the labor organizations which have been built
up in this country have in some cases been improvident in some
of their actions; but they have been in a large measure excited
to such efforts in order to protect themselves and obtain a suiliCieut amount of the proceeds of their own labor to provide the
needs of their families. These are organizations of poor men,
men who work by the day, who earn their daily bread with
their hands. The purpose of the antitrust law was not to sup
press organizations of that kind.
1 can not help thinking of the American Tobacco Company
and the effect upon tlie people down in the tobacco-raising
country. The tobacco trust, having by monopoly become the
solo buyer o f tobacco, fixes the price below the cost of produc2
50527— 9304
\
tion, and has driven the poor farmers who raise tobacco to
desperation, and even to criminal acts, in their blind efforts to
make a living. The ordinary laws which operate to suppress
criminal acts are in full operation and will punish the peer
oppressed farmers. I f they burn a barn they are guilty of
arson. If they commit a crime through their Night Riders’
organization they violate the ordinary criminal laws, and there
is abundant punishment for the criminal act.
But the antitrust laws were not intended to suppress labor,
but are necessary and were intended to protect the laborer and
the consumer from a conspiracy to defraud them. They were
intended to prevent labor and the consumers from being op
pressed.
This proviso passed by the House o f Representatives is cer
tainly a most reasonable interpretation of what the law ought
to be and a direction to the Executive not to use the appro
priation to prosecute labor organizations for combining to in
crease wages, and so forth. If they commit any act that is
unlawful, there is abundant means o f punishment; but to
prevent the laboring men of the country from organizing for
the protection of themselves and their families in earning a
reasonable livelihood, to combine to increase wages, to shorten
hours of labor, to better their condition; and to break up those
organizations by treating them in the same way as the law
treats a great conspiracy of organized capital against which
the antitrust laws were directed, I think is unfair and unjust.
I do hope that the committee will not insist upon striking
out these words inserted by the House. I think they ought to
be allowed to remain, and I hope they will remain.
The huge organizations of capital in restraint of trade,
raising prices on the necessities of life and imposing on the
people for the mere sake of ambition, greed, or cold-and cruel
avarice, needs restraint both on moral, ethical, and legal
grounds.
Organization of laboring men to protect women and children
from starvation, from exposure, sickness, and death, are justi
fied on every standpoint and should be encouraged.
The antitrust laws were not intended to be used against
labor so protecting itself; and if they were, you now have an
opportunity the Republican party' should gladly seize, to correct
and amend such laws in the interest o f labor if the Repub
licans really and truly are the friends of labor.
I fear, Mr. President, that organized capital, which con
tributes money to keep the Republican party in power, will
50527— 9304
4
control the vote of the Senate against the poor laboring
ganizations. I pray you not to vote against labor.
♦
*
*
*
*
*
*
The result was announced-—yeas 34, nays 16, as follow s:
Y E A S — 34.
Borah
Bourne
Brandegee
Bristow
Brown
Bulkeley
Burnham
Burrows
Burton
Carter
Clapp
Clark, Wyo.
Crane
Crawford
Cullom
Dick
Dixon
du Pont
Bacon
Burkett
Chamberlain
Dolliver
Fletcher
Frazier
Gore
Jones
Aldrich
Bailey
Bankhead
Beveridge
Bradley
Briggs,
Clarke, Ark.
Clay
Culberson
Cummins
Ctartis
Daniel
Davis
Degew
Dillingham
Elkins
Foster
Guggenheim
Hughes
Johnston
La Follette
Lodge
Flint
Frye
Gallinger
Gamble
Hale
Heyburn
Kean
McEnery
Nelson
Oliver
Perkins
Smoot
Stephenson
Stone
Warren
Wetmore
N A Y S — 16.
NOT
Martin
Newlands
Owen
Page
V O TIN G — 42.
Lorimer
McCumber
Money
Nixon
Overman
Paynter
Penrose
Piles
Purcell
Rayner
Richardson
So the amendment was agreed to.
50527— 9304
Percy
Simmons
Smith, S. C.
Warner
o
Root
Scott
Shively
Smith, Md.
Smith, Mich.
Sutherland
Taliaferro
Taylor
Tillman
“ No eledion of a Senator dearly shown to have been based in any
degree upon bribery or corrupt practices should be allowed to stand.
I think the eledion of United States Senators should be made and
kept above suspicion.”
REM ARKS
OF
Hon. Robert L. Owen
A United States Senator from Oklahoma
ON
The Right of William Lorimer to a Seat in the
United States Senate.
January 9, 1911.
M r. O w en sa id :
M r. President, on M ay 21, 1908, I introduced Senate join t resolution N o. 91, fo r the
subm ission o f a constitutional am endm ent providin g fo r the election o f Senators by a direct
vote o f the people.
O n M ay 23, 1908, I urged the Senate to act, show ing that 27 States had at that time
oought relief in this matter. ' Senate resolution 91 was never reported by the Com m ittee
on Privileges and E lections.
A fte r the con venin g o f the S ixty-lirst C ongress 1 introduced another Senate resolution,
N o. 41, fo r the subm ission to the States o f the U nion o f a constitutional amendm ent p rov id
ing fo r the election o f Senators by direct vote o f the people.
O n M ay 31, 1910, I again urged this reform on the attention o f the Senate, and was
prevented the privilege o f a vote, and the com m ittee has never reported on Senate join t
resolution 41.
T he Plouse o f Representatives on five different occasions has passed a bill providin g
fo r this re fo rm — in 1892; July 21, 1894; M ay 11, 1898: A pril 13, 1900; and February 13, 1902,
the last vote unanim ously, o r no one opposing.
On M ay 31, 1910, I pointed out to the Senate that every State in the U nion had acted
lavorably in this matter, except the N ew England States, N ew Y ork , D elaw are, and W est
V irginia, by passing resolutions addressed to Congress seeking fo r this reform , or by
actually nom inating Senators by a popular prim ary vote.
A n d that even in the 9 States excepted there w ere many evidences that the people
favored election o f Senators by direct vote. T h e D em ocratic Party in Connecticut, M assa
chusetts, N ew H am pshire, N ew Y ork , and R h ode Island expressly declared fo r it in 1910.
The N ational D em ocratic Party, the N ational Prohibition Party, the National Peoples
Party, have all declared in fa v o r o f it ; the A m erican Federation o f Labor, the National
Crange, the Society o f Equity, the F arm ers’ Educational C ooperation Union, and other great
organizations o f the cou ntry have declared in fa v o r o f it. A n d I insisted, Mr. President,
that this reform was needed fo r the fo llo w in g reasons, am on g oth ers:
First. That it w ould prevent deadlocks in State legislatures.
Second. It w ould com pel candidates to be subjected to the severe scrutiny o f a cam
paign b e fo re the people and prom ote the selection o f the best qualified men.
Third. That it w ould prevent interference w ith State legislation by violent ocntests over
fhe Senatorship.
2
Fourth, lh a t it w ould prevent im proper use o f maney and the corru ption o f legislatures.
T h ese matters I now refer to in the light o f the report o f the Com m ittee on Privileges
a n <\ Elections on the Senate resolution directing’ an investigation o f certain charges made
against M r. W illiam Lorimer, o f Illinois, w here it is obviou s these evils have occurred.
(P roceed in g s, p. 638.)
On June 20, 1910, the Com m ittee on P rivileges and E lections was directed by Senate
resolution 264 to report to the Senate w hether in the election o f M r. W illiam Lorimer as a
Senator o f the U nited States from the State o f Illinois—
T h e r e w e r e u s e d o r e m p lo y e d c o r r u p t m e t h o d s o r p r a c t ic e s .
On D ecem ber 21, 1910, the report o f the com m ittee was subm itted to the Senate and w ill
be fou n d in the R e c o rd o f that date. (S . Rept. N o. 942, 61 st Cong., 3d sess.)
T he Com m ittee on Privileges and E lections has reached the con clusion that the election
o f M r. Lorimer was not invalidated by any sufficient evidence of corru pt practices.
I can not acquiesce in the conclusions o f the com m ittee.
In the first place the com m ittee con cludes as a principle o f law, upon the precedents o f
■cases h eretofore b efore the Senate, that in ord er to invalidate the election o f a Senator on
account o f bribery it must be made to a p p ea r:
First. That the person elected participated in one or m ore acts o f bribery, o r attempted
bribery, o r sanctioned o r encouraged the same, or,
Second. That enough votes w ere obtained fo r him by bribery o r corru pt practices to
•change the result o f the election.
In m y ju dgm en t the better ethical rule, upon which the Senate should properly stand,
is that no election o f a Senator clearly show n to have been based in any degree upon bribery
o r corru pt practices should be allow ed to stand. 1 think that the election o f U nited States
Senators
@FedFRASER