Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ferred to the provisions of the census and the acts that are being done under it, we might presume that when the question goes before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will hold it is too late to open the question.

I have a decision on the subject for whatever it may be worth it took me about three days to find it, and I will give it to the Senate. I want to say that this decision was rendered by a very able judge, who is now one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the State of New York. He was then district judge Judge Thomas, the district judge for the southern district of New York. The point was made: What right had the Census Bureau to do the work that it is doing; that the Census Bureau, under the Constitution, had only a right to enumerate, to make an actual enumeration of inhabitants; that is all, the Constitution says. Here is what Judge Thomas

says, too:

Respecting the suggestion that the power of Congress is limited to a census of the population, it should be noticed that at stated periods Congress is directed to make an apportionment, and to take a census to furnish the necessary information therefor, and that certain representation and taxation shall be related to that census. This does not prohibit the gathering of other statistics, if "necessary and proper" for the intelligent exercise of other powers enumerated in the Constitution, and in such case there should be no objection to acquiring this information through the same machinery by which the populaton is enumerated, especially as such course would favor économy as well as the convenience of the Government and the citizens.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

For the National Government to know something, if not everything, beyond the fact that the population of each State reaches a certain limit, is apparent, when it is considered what is the dependence of this population upon the intelligent action of the General Government. Sanitation, immigration, naturalization

And then, quoting one power after another, he ends up in this way:

for these and similar purposes the Government needs each item of information demanded by the census act, and such information, when obtained, requires the most careful study, to the end that the fulfillment of the governmental function may be wise and useful.

This is the case in one hundred and sixth Federal Reporter. Mr. President, if it does not come under that provision, then it does not come under any provision. I, therefore, think this is census work. The language of this bill is:

The said bureau shall investigate and report upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children and child life, and shall especially investigate the questions of infant mortality.

I think the Census Bureau could constitutionally do this work. In other words, if the Census Bureau were to undertake to do this work, then I think it would be in the exercise of a constitutional function. I understand-I was not present, but I think the report so shows-that the Director of the Census came before the committee, and he was asked why the Census Bureau could not do this work. The answer of the Director was that he did not have the facilities for doing it.

I am not arguing, however, upon the policy of this bill at all. There is much to be said upon both sides of it. I am arguing simply the proposition of law, that if it does not come under this clause, it does not come under anything, and that if the work that is contemplated by this bill were to be done by the Census Bureau-that is to say, if we should order the Census Bureau to do this work-it would be constitutional. If the Census Bureau can do this work, and if the work that the Census Bureau does under a bill of this sort is constitutional, then, by an independent measure, we can institute a separate bureau to do it. I think that one proposition follows from the other with irresistible logic. If the Census Bureau were to undertake to investigate and report upon all matters pertaining to the welfare of children, and so on, it would come under this decision. It would come under it and be a constitutional performance of the duties of the Census Office. Then we have a perfect right to accomplish the same purpose as a matter of law by this bill.

"THE CHARTER OF DEMOCRACY."

In this address Senator Rayner on February 27, 1912, combatted in the Senate the radicalism advocated by Former President Theodore Roosevelt before the Ohio Constitutional Convention.

I hope in what I am about to say today upon the subject that I have announced, that the Senate will understand that I am not influenced by any political considerations whatever, because I believe that our party will succeed in the next Presidential contest, no matter who may be nominated by the Republican convention. I have another purpose to subserve entirely, and that is to present to this body my views upon a proposition that was advanced by ex-President Roosevelt before the Constitutional Convention of the State of Ohio a few days ago in an address entitled "The Charter of Democracy," and which I regard as the most dangerous doctrine ever brought forward by anyone who has the slightest regard for the stability of our institutions, and whose opinion is entitled to any weight or respect.

In this address of the ex-President there are a number of suggestions, such as the election of Senators by the people and primary elections for the nomination of political candidates, with which I entirely agree. What I desire to call attention to today is a unique and original conception which he advanced upon this occasion and which I quote literally, as follows:

The decision of a State Court on a constitutional question should be subject to revision by the people of the State.

If any considerable number of the people feel that the decision is in defiance of justice, they should be given the right by petition to bring before the voters at some subsequent election, special or otherwise, as might be decided, and after the fullest opportunity for deliberation and debate, the question whether or not the judge's interpretation of the Constitution is to be sustained. If it is sustained, well and good. If not, then the popular verdict is to be accepted as final, the decision is to be treated as reversed, and the construction of the Constitution

definitely decided-subject only to action by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Mr. President, if a proposition of this sort had been advanced by an ordinary agitator or by an anarchist, no attention would be paid to it. The people would understand that it was utterly meaningless, and it would involve no actual danger to the Republic. We must realize, however, that this is the utterance of a political leader, who occupies today as prominent a place before the public as anyone in the country, who is gifted with tremendous power, who commands great popularity, and who for seven years occupied the position of President of the United States, and who is now a candidate again for office.

I would like to accept the apology that has been offered for him by one of the leading papers of the country, when it says:

We shall pay Mr. Roosevelt the compliment of stating that we do not think that he believes a word of the nonsense he uttered in this speech.

But I can not do so. I would rather accept the criticism of another great paper, which observes in its editorial columns as follows, in commending to the attention of every body this salient feature of his address:

We beg leave to remark that it is the most astonishing and, in the view of healthy intelligence, the craziest proposal that ever emanated either from himself or from any other statesman since the organization of our Government by law.

I am inclined to think that the last criticism goes perhaps a little too far when it says that it is the craziest proposal that ever emanated from himself, because I have from time to time taken the liberty to submit to the Senate a number of other proposals of the ex-President which are equal to it in this regard. I want it to be known that I am very fond of the exPresident, and whenever I have an occasion to comment upon any of his constitutional views I have always done so with the greatest deference and respect.

What I would really like to know now is, not as a matter of curiosity, but for my own information, whether any man of intelligence, in his sober moments of thought and reflection, agrees with him in this contemplated change that he proposes to make in the nature of our institutions. I would like some member of the Senate to arise here now, or at any time hereafter, and announce to the country and to his constituents that he believes in the doctrine that popular verdicts should supersede judicial construction upon constitutional questions.

I would like to arise, for instance, before the people of my State and I represent as intelligent and patriotic a constituency as there is in the Union-and address them as follows: "Fellow citizens, whenever the Court of Appeals of Maryland decides that an act of the General Assembly of Maryland is unconstitutional, then the decision shall be submitted to the people, and if the people at a popular election, by a majority of their suffrages, decide otherwise, then the court shall be reversed and the decision set aside." What do you suppose, Mr. President, they would do with me? What disposition would they make of me, and where would they send me?

Just let us grasp this appalling announcement for a moment, and, if we can, let us realize that it was deliberately made after the most thorough preparation and with an actual purpose in the mind of its author that if again invested with the reins of power he would, with all the influence that he can command, advocate to the people of the States that they should, by constitutional amendment or otherwise, put it into practical execution. I am not speaking as a partisan now, and I assure you upon my honor, that I do not want to do anything that may weaken the chances of Mr. Roosevelt for a renomination at the hands of his party, because I do not believe that our party could have an easier opponent to defeat than a candidate who, by an inflammatory proposal of this character, has arrayed against himself the united intelligence of the country.

« AnteriorContinuar »