Mr. COOLIDGE. I have stated I feel that at no time is one man indispensable. I never know the best possible man to do a job.

Senator BURKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Coolidge, for coming in and giving us the benefit of your views.

Mr. James Truslow Adams writes this morning as follows:

I greatly regret that my physician will not allow me to go to Washington to present my views to the committee in person, wherefore I have to put them in writing and shall do so as briefly as possible.

Mr. Adams bears a name well known to all reading and thinking people in this country. He is an author and historian. His best known work probably is the Epic of America. This volume traces the development of American character and national traits. It has been translated into seven foreign languages. Adams also wrote the Founding of New England, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Among his many other writings, the best known probably are the March of Democracy and the Living Jefferson.

With the approval of the committee, I will present Mr. Adams' statement for the record and will read it:

STATEMENT BY JAMES TRUSLOW ADAMS

The question of a "third term"-and indeed the whole question of the tenure of office of our Chief Executive--has been a matter of practical, and often sordid, politics as also of high principle for more than a hundred and fifty years. It is with the latter aspect alone that I am concerend. I regard it as neither a party nor a personal issue but one of safeguarding all our institutions.

I shall not go at length into the history of this prickly problem, nor indulge in numerous quotations from statesmen of the past, or the platforms of the Democratic Party, or the many resolutions in Congress, which I presume has been already done by others and would be merely repetitious. There are, however, certain things to be said about it historically. As is well known, it was one of thorniest problems the Members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 had to face and was not settled until a few days before the end of its session. Almost every conceivable idea had been put forward as to a single term of varying number of years, eligibility and ineligibility for reelection, and so on. There were several reasons why this particular problem was so difficult for the fathers of the Constitution. One was that during the colonial period, when we were part of the British Empire of that day, the Executive, or Governor, of most of the Colonies was the direct representative of the Crown and so represented a power almost alien and sometimes hostile to the interest of the colonists. They could make their voices and wishes heard for the most part only in the popularly elected lower houses of the legislature. The result was an almost continuous series of squabbles between the royally appointed Governor and the legislature, the Executive thus becoming not only suspected but often feared and hated. These feelings, engrained in us during the first 150 years had great influence in the Constitutional Convention and in our political life in the second century and a half. It was for that reason that many of the most important powers of government were given to Congress and not to the President.

Another reason was the existence in Europe of absolute monarchies, equivalent to the dictatorships of today, which appeared to menace the newly acquired liberties for which our forefathers had fought. It was believed by many that if the President were given too many powers he might become a monarch or dictator, and that the weak and newly organized small Republic might be drawn into the system of European monarchies again.

There was also the fear of the people, or the mob as it was then called, and not without reason. There probably was never a wiser group of men assembled than our ancestors got together in those hot and dangerous days in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. They never intended to establish an almost pure democracy but a representative form of government.

Thus the framers of the Constitution in trying to decide between all the varied proposals concerning the President were hedged about by fears-the fear that if he were granted too many powers and could serve too long he might make himself a monarch for life (dictator, as we say now), and the fear also of the source of

his powers. The problem was temporarily solved in an almost eleventh-hour compromise by limiting his powers and by safeguarding the source of those powers by the method of his election, the well-known system of the old electoral college. His powers were not only to be well limited but he was not to be elected directly by the people. In both respects the situation has changed beyond the wildest dreams of any of the Members of the Constitutional Convention.

We speak of written and unwritten constitutions, but in fact there is only a difference in degree rather than in kind. For example, we speak of the British as having an unwritten one, but embedded in their constitution, like pebbles in a pudding stone, there are any number of written documents, such as Magna Carta, the Act of Settlement, the Act of Union, the Act of Succession, etc., which are parts of what we call their unwritten constitution. Much of the rest is based on usage, and with us also, though a greater part of our Constitution is written, usage has played its part and altered it. For example, without any formal written amendment, such as that changing the method of election of Senators, usage has brought it about that the electoral college has become merely an antiquated piece of machinery, and the President is now directly elected by the people at large, a method never foreseen by the framers of the written Constitution, who took all pains to avoid that very thing. To attempt to change that usage and to go back to the intentions of the founding fathers would wreck any political party overnight.

In this case there were distinct provisions in the Constitution. There was no provision, because they had to compromise, in a hurry, as to limiting the number of terms a President could serve and the length of his service, but here again usage has been at work. No President, for the entire period of our history as a Nation, a hundred and fifty years, has ever served for more than 8 years, either consecutively or with a lapse of one term between. This wise usage, in my opinion, has become as deeply embedded in the thinking of the people and in our Constitution or way of carrying on government, if you will, as the usage of electing a President by the people instead of by a few who belonged, in the old Federalist phrase, to "the rich, the wise, and the good." There is in our popula tion a great core of hard-headed, sober, thinking people, and I believe any effort to break down what we call the "third-term tradition" would be as deeply resented as was the effort to pack the Supreme Court after the people had had time to consider. With regard to the third term they still have more than 2 months to think.

In considering the question, however, we should not forget that the problem of how long a President might serve was inseparably connected with the method of electing him and the important point of who would elect him. Had the members of the Constitutional Convention dreamed of the enormous patronage and money which would eventually be at his disposal and that he would appeal directly to the entire populace for election to office, the discussion, in my opinion. would undoubtedly have taken a very different turn and both his powers and length of service would have been further curtailed.

As I have said, I shall not take up your time by quoting from the opinions of a long list of Presidents, which you have doubtless already had placed before you, and also, as I have said, I am trying to deal with principles and not with contemporary politics or personalities. I am an independent, although I have usually been a Democrat, but I would be opposed to a third term for anyone whosoever was in the White House and an aspirant for 12 years of power.

I believe that in the world of today, threatened not by the monarchies, which our forefathers feared, but by the far more ruthless dictators and totalitarian Governments of Russia, Germany, Italy, and Japan, we should maintain both our usage of a century and a half and have that rotation in office which was so earnestly pleaded for all his life by the great founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, and by Andrew Jackson, Grover Cleveland, and others of that party.

It is true that we cannot live in the past. Each generation has to face new conditions and adjust themselves and their institutions to them, but the garnered wisdom of great men and patriots for a hundred and fifty years is not to be lightly overridden-and what are the conditions of today?

In almost every country, save that last bulwark of liberty except ourselves, the British Empire, we find a vast tide flowing toward one-man government, the resigning of personal freedoms-freedom of speech, the press, religion, and action-because of a crisis which the people seem to be tired of trying to resolve for themselves. It is a tide which has gained amazing speed and momentum and threatens to engulf the entire world. All the more reason for our maintaining all the d bulwarks we have built against it in the past. We have

seen how the old ideas as to the Presidency as written into the Constitution have been largely altered. I need not remind you how the President's powers instead of being limited have been increased to an unprecedented and almost incredible extent, never dreamed of when the framers of the Constitution failed to limit his length of service; how he now appeals to the suffrages of all the people; how the number of Federal employees alone has increased from the few score in Washington's day to around a million; how millions upon millions of other citizens are receiving money from the Government and bureau heads whom the President appoints; how he has billions of money at his disposal. Even in the United States the power of one man has become almost overwhelming. The longer it lasts, the more strongly entrenched it may become. If we break with usage and tradition and allow a man to retain such powers for 12 years instead of 8, why not for 16, 20, or for life? Our world is changing fast and it can always be said that there is a crisis.

If in 1787 with a population of only some three millions we could assemble such a group of leaders as worked that summer in Philadelphia, and if now with a population of 130,000,000 it is claimed that only one man among all of us is capable of leading, what has happened to America? Is it that Americans can produce no leader among all their vast numbers, or that we have grown tired of thinking for ourselves, and prefer to have doles and benefits handed out to us? I am not speaking of Franklin Roosevelt, for I do not think he wants to play the role of dictator, but of any man, present or future, who might be allowed to hold the office of President indefinitely under the modern and uncontemplated conditions of the office and of the world. By usage, Supreme Court decisions, formal amendments, and in other ways, the Constitution has been changed to meet new needs, though perhaps not always as rapidly or as completely as some would wish. Nevertheless we have changed it to meet new situations of our own and of the world. In view of the present situation and world trends, I believe it would be wise to add to the force of usage and tradition a formal amendment limiting the term of the Presidential office. As to whether the limitation should be to one term of 6, 7, or 8 years, as was discussed in 1787, or to two terms of 4 years each, there is something to be said on both sides. Personally, as Jefferson finally came to believe, I prefer the latter, but the main point is that some limit should be placed.

It is true that at some time this might cause inconvenience and uncertainty but that would be true in any case and is due to our whole form of government rather than to the supposed existence of the one "indispensable man." We cannot do, as the Brititsh can, and turn an administration out in a moment on a vote of want of confidence on a major issue and hold an election and have a new government in 2 or 3 weeks, or even shuffle the Prime Minister and Cabinet in a day or two without an election and start again. With our congressional instead of parliamentary responsible form of government we must unfortunately have a waiting period of some 6 or 7 months between the nominating conventions, election and inauguration, whether any one President is eligible to a third term or not. Even if he is, that does not eliminate the uncertainty and pause in policies. Those are bound to occur unless a President is so certain in the minds of all the people and himself to be reelected as to make the conventions and election a mere farce and useless relics of the past, like the electoral college has become.

For all the reasons stated I am in favor of a constitutional limitation on the tenure of the Presidential office, and I would limit it to two terms of 4 years each without eligibility beyond those.

Mr. William Alfred Eddy is next.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ALFRED EDDY, PRESIDENT OF HOBART AND WILLIAM SMITH COLLEGES, GENEVA, N. Y.

Senator BURKE. Mr. Eddy, you are president of Hobart College? Mr. EDDY. Yes, sir.

Senator BURKE. At Geneva, N. Y.?

Mr. EDDY. Yes, sir.

Senator BURKE. I recall very well, as I am sure other members of the committee do, your appearance and very helpful contribution when the Judiciary Committee met in this room something over 3 years ago to consider a very important matter.

I recall at that time you stated you were a lifelong Democrat and that you considered yourself a New Deal Democrat.

You are, I believe, a graduate of Princeton University, taught at the American University at Cairo, Egypt, and at Dartmouth College. This matter I would also like to mention. because I recall your modesty prevented you from bringing it out before, and we had a little difficulty in eliciting the facts, and now that we have them I am going to state them for the record.

During the World War, Mr. Eddy was a member of the Marine Corps; he was wounded in the Battle of Belleau Wood, at Chateau Thierry, and spent nearly 2 years in the hospital. For bravery in action he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, and the Order of the Purple Heart.

We are very glad to have you with us this morning, Mr. Eddy, and are glad to have your views on this important question.

Mr. EDDY. I am very glad to accept the invitation of Senator Burke to speak in favor of a single term for the presidency, which means Senate Joint Resolution 15 only. May I say, at the beginning, that I have very little interest in the current controversy over a third term. I am a New Deal Democrat. When election day comes I shall vote for the candidate who, at that date, offers the greatest assurance of mobilizing all the Nation's resources for national defense, and who recognizes most clearly that the survival of Britain, with her navy, is our first line of defense. The fascist revolution had dwarfed all other issues into insignificance. I disapprove strongly of a third term for the same reasons that I disapprove of a second term. Eligibility for reelection is the basic evil, and this eligibility has already cast its blight of suspicion upon many recent acts of the administration. The damage has been done already. The election of Mr. Roosevelt next November may well prove to be expedient, but his candidacy while in office has been a calamity.

Nor do I share the alarm of those who fear lest some dictator perpetuate himself in office. Dictators do not arrive by constitutional routes, nor are they delayed by constitutional prohibitions. No protection can be secured by a constitutional amendment disqualifying from the Presidency Austrian house painters wearing a small black moustache. The first and the last word on this subject were said by George Washington:

When a people have become incapable of governing themselves and fit for a master, it is of little consequence from what quarter he comes.

The merit of the single term is attested by the vitality with which the proposal has recurred scores of times throughout our history. Many of our presidents have declared for it, including Jefferson, Jackson, Hayes, Cleveland, and Taft. A resolution proposing a constitutional amendment was adopted by the Senate in 1913. The single, 6-year term was a plank in the platform of the Democratic Party in 1912 though the party's candidate, Woodrow Wilson, refused to stand on it. The proposal is always suspected of being aimed at some living candidate; there seems never to be a good time to get it considered strictly on its merits; therefore, there is no better time than the present.

Some political observers, including Harold Laski in his excellent recent book, The American Presidency, deplore our constitutional separation of functions and predict for us future Presidents who will

be more powerful and effective because they will be, like prime ministers, party leaders who make the policies they also administer. Certainly, we must agree that the office of the President is accumulating these unforeseen legislative and judicial powers, but this drift need not be accelerated. The current may yet be reversed, and one important force to that end is the single-term amendment which would take the President out of politics the day he enters the White House.

There are good reasons why the term of office should be 6, 7, or even 8 years, rather than 4. Four years is too short a time to test and complete an administrative program; it must take some time just to learn the job and select and train departmental assistants. If the individual is incompetent, then 1 month is too long a term. I cannot believe, however, that we should plan our election laws on the assumption that the President will have to be promptly removed from office. Difficulty of divorce reacts to make more careful marriage. A longer term of office should mean only more responsible elections. If we bother to elect a President at all it must be because we expect the man chosen by the people to go ahead and fill his office faithfully. Six years is not too long a time.

Among the other advantages to be mentioned is less frequent return of election year. The turmoil and agony of Presidential elections would be subdivided by 6 instead of by 4-a consummation devoutly to be wished.

On the advantages of a single term I shall only mention several of the merits of the single term, all of which have been expounded repeatedly by statesmen from Jefferson to Cleveland and Taft.

No one man is indispensable; there are always a score who could take his place, though political loyalty may have sworn them to a passion for anonymity. I am not greatly impressed with the fear that the Nation might be deprived of the services of a champion in her hour of need. On the contrary, eligibility of the incumbent for reelection narrows the field of candidates and excludes talent which would otherwise be eligible. The party in power feels obliged to endorse its leader and fears that the elevation of another would constitute a public repudiation of their last successful candidate. We have, therefore, almost an automatic renomination of the President by his party. This hardly promotes a free choice in a wide field of candidates.

A single term will add dignity to the office. Even when he might prefer to retire from public life, a President may permit himself to be renominated because of a very natural desire to have his administration approved. The scornful phrase "one-termer" has been used in derision and contempt more than once in our history. If the President is ineligible for reelection, his position in history and the gratitude of his countrymen may be determined in ways less expensive than reelection.

A single term will spare the President unnecessary vilification from those who really approve but are obliged by campaign necessity to find fault. No matter how hard one tries, it is next to impossible to separate the attempt to beat an opponent at the polls from unconscious sabotage to render ineffective the operations of government which that individual is carrying on in the public interest.

Mr. Willkie, for example, with unprecedented generosity, has endorsed policies of the present administration with which he, as a