THIRD TERM FOR PRESIDENT

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1940

UNITED STATES SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, in the Senate Office Building, room 457, at 10:30 a. m., Senator Edward R. Burke (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Burke (chairman) and Wiley.

Senator BURKE. The committee will come to order, and proceed. We are glad to have as our first witness this morning Mrs. W. Selden Washington, of Virginia.

Let me ask you first, Mrs. Washington, by way of qualification, your husband is of the Virginia Washington family?

Mrs. WASHINGTON. Yes.

Senator BURKE. Am I correctly informed that the father of your husband was in the last family of Washington born at Mount Vernon and brought up at that historic place?

Mrs. WASHINGTON. Yes, sir.

Senator BURKE. We are very glad indeed to have appear before the committee one connected with the family of the first President of our country.

STATEMENT OF IRENE TINSLEY (MRS. W. SELDEN) WASHINGTON

Mrs. WASHINGTON. I feel a third term is against the principles of democracy and absolutely against the original intent of the men who wrote the Constitution. They never intended for one man to continue at the head of the Government indefinitely. At the Constitutional Convention one term of 7 years, with ineligibility for reelection, was frequently mentioned, but the length of term was always considered with the mode of election. These two things were never discussed separately.

General Washington, the President of the Convention, in presiding, did not enter the discussions and voted only in case of a tie. Listening to the discussions day after day, he was in a better position to observe the real feelings of the men than possibly they themselves. Even had General Washington desired a third term I do not see how he could have honestly and consistently accepted the nomination knowing their feelings on the subject before person or personality entered into it.

As the Convention was drawing to a close, General Washington's one and only speech occurred. Quoting Abraham Baldwin, a Georgia delegate:

After the instrument was engrossed and ready to be signed, General Washington, then President of the Convention, rose with pen in his hand, and observed that his duty as presiding officer and his inclination had united in preventing him from taking an active part in the interesting debates of that body-that doubts might exist whether he approved the instrument or only signed it by order of Convention-he thought it his duty to remove those doubts by explicitly declaring that though he did not consider it a perfect system, yet he approved of it as a man and as a delegate from Virginia (William Plumer: Memorandum of Proceedings in the U. S. Senate 1803-09 (1923), p. 519, quoted in Warren op. cit. p. 712).

To quote from Washington's Farewell Address:

The period for a new election of a citizen to administer the Executive Government of the United States being not far distant, and the time actually arrived when your thoughts must be employed in designating the person who is to be clothed with that important trust, it appears to me proper, especially as it may conduce to a more distinct expression of the public voice, that I should now apprise you of the resolution I have formed, to decline being considered among the number of those out of whom a choice is to be made.

*

*

I beg you at the same time to do me the justice to be assured that this resolution has not been taken without a strict regard to all the considerations appertaining to the relation which binds a dutiful citizen to his country; and that, in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence, in my situation, might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interests; no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness; but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both (Charles H. Callahan: Washington the Man and the Mason, pars. 1 and 2, pp. 165 and 166). When you do the right thing it requires no explanation. General Washington proved what he thought by his actions. His decision was not motivated by lack of interest for the future of the country, nor was he egotistical enough to believe that he was the only man in his day and generation capable of properly conducting the office he was about to relinquish. War was raging in Europe then as now. If infant democracy could survive his retirement, why the necessity after 143 years to cling to one personality? Why limit God? Each generation brings forth many wonderful men. I feel that the Constitution and the unwritten law concerning the third-term precedent are sacred documents because they came after our Revolutionary ancestors had passed through great trials and suffering, and they came as the result of unselfishly sought divine guidance.

No intelligent person prays that the Ten Commandments temporarily be set aside to give license to do something forbidden. When we break those laws we pay for disobedience.

After reading many excerpts on the subject of the third-term issue, the four things that impressed me most were: First, the two Presidents who probably could have had three terms saved the people from themselves; second, two Presidents attempted a third term and the people saved themselves from the Presidents-both Presidents were Republicans and the Republican Party protested against the attempt to break the tradition as loudly as the Democratic Party; third, the number of Presidents who gave definite statements against a third term, either before taking office or during their administration: fourth, the number of times the anti-third-term issue was a plank in the Democratic platform-it was also in the Constitution of the Southern Confederacy. It is interesting to note that Virginia, North Carolina, and New York offered resolutions in their respective States against a third term when the Democracy was quite young.

Until recently I was of the opinion that the unwritten third-term tradition was as strong as the Constitution itself; it was a gentle

men's agreement and that men loved to be trusted to do the right thing and put on their honor; that it strengthened their morale; and I did not feel any man big enough for Presidential timber would ever be willing to risk the scorn of or break faith with his fellow man by being a party to such an offense, such a violation of our unwritten law. I still have faith in the majority of my fellow men, but to protect ourselves against the minority I think it is now proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the time has come for the strongest written law against a third term that the human mind is capable of drafting be executed.

If Great Britain could change Prime Ministers in the midst of the worst war and crisis the world has ever known, and to an advantage. why should America hesitate to change Presidents? There is no comparable crisis here. Breaking a precedent sacred to all redblooded Americans would have a much worse moral effect on the people than changing Presidents. If a crisis loophole is allowed it would be too easy for an ambitious Executive to create the existence of a crisis in the minds of the people and for his own selfish gains at any time.

Personally, I had far rather have 4 years with a poor Presidentand I think this quite unlikely than this wise precedent broken. The majority of power is held by Congress anyway. I had also rather see my party split, than see this precedent broken. A clean wound soon heals. The only permanent split or break would be breaking parasites away from true ideals of democracy.

If our political leaders are too involved with party or are looking too intently for political plums and personal gains-in other words, too busy selling our birthright for a mess of porridge, even then all is not lost. I believe the women of America, who may not be physically built to shoulder guns, will rise to the need of their country and shoulder the mental responsibility to crush this threat to our Government. Before women had the right to vote it was often said that we were indirect voters. Women of America will not let a state of lethargy keep them back. They will use their glorious privilege directly and indirectly. Those who have Plymouth ancestry, Revolutionary ancestry, Huguenot ancestry, or any other freedom-loving ancestry, which caused them to seek this country, will pay their debt of gratitude to their forebears who gave their lives to give us freedom. The women will hold high the torch of enlightenment that was given us that our descendants may enjoy the same freedom we have enjoyed. Americanism comes before partyism-not after it. I do not hold with the Virginia Senators that the party is right regardless of what it does.

Lest we be consumed by blind party affiliations let me quote to you what General Washington said on the subject. [Reading:]

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design and direct control, counterac、, or awe, the regular deliberation and action, of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force. to put, in the place of the delegated will of the Nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans, digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

However combinations or associations of the above descriptions may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp, for themselves, the reins of Government, destroying afterward the very engines which lifted them to unjust dominion.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which, in different ages and countries, has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is, itself, a frightful despotism. But this leads, at length, to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and, sooner or later, the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continued mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it. It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeebles the public administrations. It agitates the commmuity with illfounded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments, occasionally, riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the Government itself, through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This, within certain limits, is probably true, and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in government purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose, and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame lest, instead of warming, it should consume (Charles H. Callahan (Washington Farewell Address): Washington the Man and the Mason).

In my hu nble judgment, if the American people are shortsighted and indifferent enough to let this tradition be broken, then we must be in a state of mind where we need two Hitlers instead of one. I do not believe for a minute that the German people realized what they were letting themselves in for when they so willingly accepted Mr. Hitler in an emergency. When they realized their mistake it was too late to turn back. Autocracy was complete.

There is a tradition in the Washington family that General Washington expressed himself frequently and freely on the subject of the length of time one man should be permitted to hold the office of President of the United States. The question is often discussed in our home. This tradition in no uncertain terms forbade that that term should be more than 8 years, without exception.

There are many people who think the recent Democratic Convention a perfect farce. If three terms are allowed now, in 4 more years there would probably be not even a pretense of a convention, and following that no more than a pretense of an election.

In conclusion. I see more strongly than ever the necessity of an amendment to the Constitution prohibiting a third term-and let it not be forgotten that the precedent of a third term will always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any illusion of partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield, for though this in one instance may appear to be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which tree governments are destroyed.

Senator BURKE. Thank you very much, Mrs. Washington, for your very splendid and interesting statement.

You made reference to the Senators from Virginia in the course of your statement, and I think it would not be inappropriate to read a letter which I received a few moments ago from the Senior Senator from Virginia. I have sent to him a copy of the testimony of a witness who appeared before the committee a week or so ago and made an outstanding contribution to this discussion, Dr. Jacob Gould Schurman, and it was in acknowledging receipt of that that the Senator from Virginia wrote me as follows:

Touching yours of September 10, just now brought to my attention, I might say that I am utterly opposed to a third term for the President of the United States, and I am inclined to believe with Mr. Jefferson in his statement that the law should provide that the President may have but two terms of 4 years each.

Sincerely yours,

CARTER GLASS.

I am sure your statement this morning will be very helpful, and I hope that a great many people throughout the United States will have the opportunity of reading it between now and the 5th of November.

Senator WILEY. I have no questions.

Senator BURKE. Thank you very much.

The remaining witness this morning, I am very glad to announce, is Mr. George W. Robnett, executive secretary of the Church League of America.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. ROBNETT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY,

CHURCH LEAGUE OF AMERICA, CHICAGO, ILL.

Mr. ROBNETT. Thank you, Senator. I have prepared a little statement here for you, but before reading it I should like to pay my respects to the committee for the privilege of appearing before it. It was extremely difficult for me to come. May I say if the committee had been chairmanned by a man whom I less respected or a man of lesser stature, I don't think I should have come, but Senator Burke has endeared himself to myself and to the country for the excellent work he did on the court-packing bill, and I am glad to do anything I can to help.

The statement I have prepared is perhaps a little unusual and a little different, but I shall read it for you now.

While I address this committee as an individual citizen, I am prepared at the same time to reflect the views of a great many within and outside our organization, the Church League of America, whose impressions I have sought especially for this purpose.

I have anticipated that your committee is interested in learning the sentiment of the citizenry on two main questions, namely: (1) Shall there be legislation to limit Presidential tenure for any single individual;

(2) If so, what form of restriction would be best suited for the purpose?

In order to obtain a cross-section of sentiment upon these two questions, I have consulted a number of people from our committee of clergy-and also from our committee of laymen. In the instance