be able to do what Hamilton and Adams and Webster and Marshall could not do? No one of them ever delivered a speech like his. They could not do that. Therefore, the Senator can do what Hamilton and Adams and Webster and the mighty Marshall could not do. We require no greater proof of that, than this constitutional argument of the Senator from Nebraska. Great thought, great power, profound research, and above all, a matchless voice that, re-echoed through the corridors and coming back upon the waves of sound, victoriously and triumphantly rode upon the circumambient air.

The trouble with the Senator is not that he can not do what Hamilton and Adams and Webster and Marshall could not do, but that he did not live in the early days of the Republic, so that he could have shed the illuminating light of his eagle intellect upon the Constitution of the country. Mr. President, that is the trouble with a great many men of wonderful giftsthey live at the wrong time. If the Senator had been a member of the Constitutional Convention, what a different instrument we would have had, and how men like Hamilton, and Patterson, and Wilson, and Madison, and Rutledge, and Pinckney would have paled into insignificance beside the marvelous and majestic genius of the Senator from Nebraska! The Senator has done what Marshall and Taney never accomplished, because the Senator seems to have studied the Constitution only for about seven days, but within that time he has acquired a familiarity with it greater than both Marshall and Taney, who spent, together, over sixty years upon the Supreme Bench of the United States, interpreting its provisions, and both of whom, at various times, gave expression to the thought that they had hardly approached the threshold of that immortal charter.

Now, the Senator says, speaking of me:

If he had been called to preach, he probably would have specialized on funerals and chanted requiems to the dead and gone of his fellow-men.

I do not know if this classical allusion to myself by the Senator was intended as an insult or a compliment. If it was intended as an insult, I feel highly complimented, and if it was intended as a compliment, I feel deeply chargined. I would suggest to the Senator that I have no talent along this line. I can neither sing nor chant, but if the time should unexpectedly come when the people of Nebraska desire to celebrate the Senator's political funeral, and such a great calamity should befall them, I will take the liberty of sending as my substitute the junior Senator from Tennessee, who, with his other gifts, possesses great talent in this direction, and he will chant a requiem that in lyric and pathetic tones will, perhaps, fully console the constituencies of Nebraska for the irreparable loss that they have sustained by the premature departure of the Senator at the very meridian of his brilliant power.

The Senator now goes on to observe:

I hope, however, that I am not insane enough to undertake to turn from the accepted construction of these words, quite as old as the words themselves

Referring to the general welfare clause of the Constitution, Mr. President, the Senator should relieve me from this charge. I never said that the Senator was insane. I would not take this speech of his and upon that single effort make a decision upon that question. I have given some attention and study to diseases of the mind, but it would be necessary for me to take a number of the Senator's speeches before arriving at any definite conclusion. I therefore think that the Senator has mixed me up with some other alienist who has perhaps given an opinion upon the subject.

And now the Senator further observes, referring to me, that I deny myself the splendor of contemporary achievement. That is another mistake upon the Senator's part. I listened to the whole of the Senator's great argument from beginning to end, and, therefore, I have not denied myself what I con

sider the splendor of the greatest contemporary achievement of modern times.

When the Senator comes right down to the great proposition with which he is struggling, in trying to reconcile himself to his former utterances, Mr. President, listen to this priceless gem:

This bill

Says he

would be constitutional if Congress believed it would be beneficial in raising and supporting an army.

What a sublime thought! How original in its conception and how unlimited in its expansive possibilities! Here is another jewel, plucked from the very crown of jurisprudence, as a constitutional sanction for its enactment:

It would stimulate trade

Says the Senator—

and revive the drooping energies of the country and restore confidence to the public mind.

What do you think of that, Mr. President, that among the enumerated powers these undiscovered faculties had been concealed for years until discovered by the Senator from Nebraska, the delegated power upon the part of Congress to restore confidence to the public mind and revive the drooping energies of the country.

Mr. President, I have made these few remarks simply to prevent the Senator's speech from being consigned to oblivion. I have studied it word for word and bestowed upon it all the concentrated attention of my mind. We know by experience that, no matter what merit it possesses, it may in the multiplicity of arguments that emanate day by day from the Halls of Congress be lost to view, and when once lost to contemporary history it may be gone forever. Sad episodes like this have often occurred before. Some of the finest specimens of

literature and some of the greatest efforts of statesmanship have escaped the attention of those for whom they were written and to whom they have been addressed, and sometimes, after a century of forgetfulness, they have been resurrected from their graves. This ought not to be the fate of the Senator's effort. It ought not to be its fate, because the thoughts it conveys are absolutely original. It has not a feature of imitation about it. It gives to the rising generation an entirely new conception of constitutional guaranties and places the Constitution in a light that it has never been placed before. With no hand to guide him, no beaten track to follow, and no example to emulate, the Senator has struck out for himself, and, to use a borrowed phrase, he has "floated serenely on the surface," absolutely unconscious of the unfathomed depths beneath. With dauntless and intrepid voice he has proclaimed the principle that whenever Congress believes that any of its enactments will accomplish some enumerated power of the Constitution, the belief of Congress settles the constitutionality of its legislation. It is not as Marshall said, "That Congress is the judge of the decree of necessity, and if the means are proper to accomplish any enumerated power, then the courts will not interfere with the discretion of Congress if adapted to the end." This is no longer the formula. No "such pent-up Utica" contracts the boundless aspirations of the Senator. If it is useful, if it is beneficial, says the Senator, then Congress is alone the judge of its constitutionality.

That I may not misquote the Senator from Nebraska, let me read, because it is only a few lines, his language upon this subject:

If the object of this bill is needed, or if it will be helpful, in the opinion of Congress, to regulate and promote commerce among the States, it is proper under the commerce clause of the Constitution. If it will be useful to the Government in borrowing money, it can be maintained under the clause authorizing Congress to borrow money. If Congress believes it would be beneficial in raising and supporting an army, it is constitutional.

Then all that it is necessary for us to do is to believe that the legislation we are enacting is constitutional, and that makes it constitutional beyond the investigation of the Supreme Court. It need not be necessary, it need not be proper within the language of the Constitution, it need not be the means adapted to the end, but if it is helpful, if it is beneficial, and we believe it is constitutional, that settles forever the constitutionality of the legislation. Transcendent thoughts!

Mr. President, should a discovery like this be permitted to die? It may die unless some steps are taken to save it. Some necessary and proper means, therefore, should be devised to rescue it from oblivion. The Senator alone has it within his power to accomplish this purpose. Transcripts and copies and duplicates of his constitutional discovery should be sent to every academy and college and university and seat of learning in the land wherever constitutional law is taught, so that some day, when this great edifice, with its broken columns and arches, may crumble into ruin, these imperishable utterances of the Senator from Nebraska shall endure and survive, "wrapped in the solitude of their own originality, immutable amid change, magnificent amid ruin."

THE ELECTION OF SENATORS BY DIRECT VOTE.

Popular election of Senators was a principle long advocated by Senator Rayner, and on February 27, 1911, he urged the adoption of a resolution submitting a constitutional amendment to this effect. He did not live to see this amendment ratified.

I ask the attention of the Senate just for a few moments to give the reasons why I shall vote for the joint resolution, submitting to the Legislatures the question of the popular election of Senators with the Sutherland amendment in it. I will not take long. I promised the Senator from Georgia I would not