thinking. Would you have an opinion as to whether in the minds and hearts of the American people today this third-term tradition is justas I think a member of the Cabinet called it-"a little political humbug, something to talk about," or is it your opinion that deep down in the hearts of the American people there is a feeling that our liberties and the perpetuating of our institutions is wrapped up with the maintenance of this tradition?

Mr. COUDERT. As far as I have had an opportunity to observe, and I have not been around the country in the last few months and since the question has become alive, but certainly among all the older people, the members of the bar and those who have studied, have been educated, and understand American institutions, I think there is a very deep feeling against the third term, probably as much as ever existed."

My fear, frankly, Senator, would be that among the masses of younger people who have never had to make any sacrifice for America, who have never felt themselves threatened in their own liberty or perhaps property or personality because of an invasion of liberty, there is a kind of cheap admiration of the efficiency of totalitarianism. That, I think, was rather notably true perhaps before the war. They saw Germany doing things, building up a huge military machine, accomplishing all kinds of things, although they had been very much down a few years before, and there was a certain cynical contemptmy friend, Dr. Archer, who is a university president, can perhaps answer better than I-but a dangerous cynical contempt among much of the younger generation, of these "old fogy" notions. Much of that was just as much related to the Bill of Rights as it is to this great third-term tradition, and some of us who have been connected with educational institutions for many years have rather taken that to heart. We have been concerned about it. Men like my dear friend, Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler, of Columbia University, our wisest educator, a great voice for liberty and right in this country, have expressed fears of that kind. Now, how deep that goes I do not know, but my own supposition is that with the revival of a great patriotic movement because the Nation is threatened with the danger of war I think that that superficial cynicism in the younger will disappear. They will appreciate that American institutions are the greatest political institutions for the safeguarding of human liberty that the world has yet devised and that it is worthwhile making some sacrifice and even perhaps submitting to a certain amount of inefficiency as compared with totalitarian states to preserve that liberty. I, therefore, think that you gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee are doing a manifestly useful educational work, because in talking with the young men I found that many of them did not understand much about the third term, they did not understand its history, they did not understand fully its implications. I have the personal conviction that if the roll of America were called, leaving out perhaps certain subversive and alien-minded if not foreign elements, 90 percent of the American people if not more would say "No third term. It is the road to possible dictatorship and the ruin of American institutions." Senator BURKE. Thank you very much.

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest to the distinguished citizen this: You, sir, have real convictions on this subject, and I think our problem is probably one of getting your message or its equivalent to the people of this country. I think some of you people

who have such convictions should give thought to that very thing. The average citizen is so taken up with his own problems that the most superficial suggestion, yes, even in the nature of propaganda, is the thing that he may follow.

Practically all of the witnesses who have appeared before the committee thus far have taken the high moral attitude. I think it is time that someone approached the present problem. Everyone knows that the reason the present incumbent in office is asking for reelection is that for some reason or other it has been gotten across to a large number of people that he alone can lead us across this Red Sea. I think that a keen analysis will show that in 72 years during which we have been "led" we have been fed palliatives, not curatives, and that we are in deep water because of that leadership; but the main argument that is being made is being addressed to men of affluence and means and to labor, along this line: "You know, the present leadership knows all about foreign relations. He is dealing with foreign countries. He is right in the midst of it, and this is no time to change horses in the middle of a stream." The average citizen falls for that line of bunk.

We are not in the middle of the stream; we have not even approached the shore; but if we were, we might better change to someone who knows how to handle the horse in the middle of the stream. They did it in England. I am thinking now of the millions of men who are troubled and of the women who are fearful, and I am thinking of the million folks who are employed by Government, who directly and indirectly, most of them are using their office to suggest this line of thought and propaganda, not having in mind the danger to this country that you suggest. So I would have minds like yours, sir, set aside a few moments each day to devote yourself to this problem, "How can I best serve America by getting the truth out to the people of this country?" If you would do that you would aid this country in so constructive a way that when your time comes you could feel you could face your Maker without any qualms.

Mr. COUDERT. That is very interesting. I think it could be shown historically that the thought you have suggested was the basis of every dictatorship since the time of Napoleon. I remember as a young boy I used to hear much, when I went abroad, of past times. and of how Louis Napoleon had come and subverted the system of the French Republic of that day, between 1848 and 1851, on the ground that he was the indispensable man, he was the one man that could save them in foreign affairs and everything else. Hitler did the same thing only the other day.

Senator WILEY. Surely.

Mr. COUDERT. That is the open door and the approach to dictatorship. It lies through the creating of the legend of indispensability to the safety of the people which must do away with everything else. Historically, that is perfectly true.

Senator BURKE. Thank you very much, Mr. Coudert.

As the next witness, we call Dr. Gleason L. Archer, president of Suffolk University, Boston. I have known Dr. Archer for a good many years. He is a historian, author of various law textbooks, and a public citizen of distinction. We are very glad to have President Archer with us.

STATEMENT OF GLEASON L. ARCHER, LL. D., PRESIDENT,
SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY, BOSTON

Mr. ARCHER. Gentlemen of the subcommittee, I have a summary of my remarks which I will present in writing. At the outset, however, I think it well to follow the example of my distinguished predecessor at this hearing and explain away any possible question of partisanship. May I say that I am the eleventh generation of English descent in this country; that for 6 years, from 1933-39, I was counselor general of the General Society of Mayflower Descendants. May I say further that my ancestors fought in the Revoiutionary War, and that all the Archers in my ancestory since. Thomas Jefferson's day have been Democrats. I voted for the present incumbent in the White House in 1932, and at first was a strong supporter of the New Deal. It was only when the New Deal and the present administration began to depart from constitutional limitations within which the United States of America has lived and prospered for nearly a century and a half that I foreswore the New Deal. In 1936 I was one of the few Democrats who went to Detroit and organized the Jeffersonian Democrats. I was chairman of radio for the Jeffersonian Democrats. I appear here today to speak on this latest threat to constitutional government, the third-term effort of President Roosevelt.

Now, perhaps I should call attention to this: A fallacious argument is being advanced throughout the country that influences our youth and aged, to this effect: Why should the President be limited to two terms when Senators and Congressmen and Governors and members of legislatures generally may serve continuously for many years? The answer to that is, all the world knows that powers entrusted to an American President by our Constitution are as great as those possessed by any king or potentate of 1787. Now, the founding fathers, as the previous speaker has pointed out, were very familiar with historical precedent. They were very familiar with the dangers inherent in democracy. The framers of our Constitution were well aware of the tremendous power that they were entrusting to the Presidency. That is why they limited the Presidential term to 4 years; and note this-they expressly provided that these powers should expire on the stroke of midnight of the last day of the 4-year period. There was to be no holding over until a successor could qualify, thus checking any possible treachery on the part of the incumbent to entrench himself in power.

Now, let us look at the history of the Presidential term. It is noteworthy that on May 29, 1787, the Virginia delegation, of which, of course, George Washington was the leading spirit, presented to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia a plan of government calling for an Executive to be chosen for a term of years without designating the term, and "to be ineligible a second time." It was argued that a single term of reasonable duration would prove an effective curb upon lust for power. Indeed, some of the most earnest debates of those wise men in the Convention centered around the oneterm idea.

It is very significant that on June 2, 1787, the Convention voted to limit the term of President to a single term of 7 years. This

action was agreed to by Massachusetts, New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, the only opposition being from Connecticut, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. This provision stood from June 2 to July 17, when a move was made to strike out the ineligibility clause. William C. Houston, of New Jersey, made that motion, which was seconded by Roger Sherman, of Connecticut. Gouverneur Morris, of Pennsylvania, argued for the change on the ground that ineligibility "destroyed the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by reappointment." On this motion, six States voted in the affirmative, four in the negative.

The 7-year period was taken up at this same meeting and after considerable discussion the term was reduced to 6 years. Nine States voted for such a limitation, one State against it. On July 25, Charles Pinckney, of South Carolina, proposed that no person should be eligible to serve as President for more than 6 years in 12, but this motion was rejected.

Α

The question of length of Presidential term continued to trouble the delegates during the entire period of the Convention. Every so often the matter was resurrected and argued pro and con. definite cleavage of opinion had developed among the delegates. Those who opposed a single term apparently felt that there was grave danger that a term appropriate for a wise and able President might be an unmixed calamity in the case of an incompetent Chief Executive.

Nothing of a permanent nature was accomplished until a special committee reported on September 4, 1787, a new draft of the controversial provision fixing the Presidential term at 4 years. Throughout the debates in the Constitutional Convention on the Presidential term there had run an undercurrent of fear lest an ambitious President might make himself a dictator or a king. The 4-year term with eligibility to succeed himself was the inevitable compromise, it apparently being felt that 4 years was as long as the Nation could endure a bad President but that 8 years was not too long for a President of outstanding ability. If then we consider the inception of the 4-year constitutional provision and remember that the presiding officer of that Convention, George Washington, was the first President to decline a third term, we have a significant reflection of the unwritten judgment of that group of wise men.

Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson, one of the most farseeing of American statesmen, was a militant advocate of limiting the Presidential office to 8 years.

Fortunately, the great founder of the Democratic Party has left voluminous evidence of his own attitude toward the third-term danger. Jefferson was not able to attend the Constitutional Convention of 1787 but he took vigorous part in its ratification and is generally credited with leadership in framing the Virginia reservations, one of which called for a provision that "no person shall be capable of being President of the United States for more than 8 years in any term of 16 years." Now, that is Jefferson in theory. Let us take up Jefferson as a holder of the Presidential office.

Years later, when himself President of the United States, and under pressure from his followers to continue in office, he wrote to John Taylor the following significant words:

My opinion originally was that the President of the United States should have been elected for 7 years, and ineligible afterwards. I have since become sensible that 7 years is too long to be irremovable, and that there should be a peaceable way of withdrawing a man in midway who is doing wrong. The service for 8 years, with power to remove at the end of the first 4. comes nearer to my principle as corrected by experience: and it is in adherence to that, that I determine to withdraw at the end of my second term. The danger is that the indulgence and attachments of the people will keep a the chair after he becomes a dotard, and that reelection through life shall become habitual, and election for life follow that. General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement after 8 years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will oppose the obstacle of habit anyone who after a while shall endeavor to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish it by an amendment to the Constitution.

* *

*

man in

So you can see that Thomas Jefferson when President of the United States advocated this very thing for which this committee is now sitting. Now, to continue with Jefferson's views on this subject,

he says:

That I should lay down my charge at a proper period is as much a duty as to have borne it faithfully. If some termination to the services of the Chief Magistrate be not fixed by the Constitution, or supplied by practice, his office, nominally for years, will, in fact, become for life; and history shows how easily that degenerates into an inheritance. Believing that a representative government, responsible at short periods of election, is that which produces the greatest sum of happiness to mankind, I feel it a duty to do no act which shall essentially impair that principle; and I should unwillingly be the person who, disregarding the sound precedent by an illustrious predecessor, should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second term of office.

Remember, gentlemen, that Jefferson was the third President of the United States. The second President, John Adams, had only a 4-year term so had no opportunity to set the precedent which Jefferson himself established. Remember also that Monroe and Madison, both of whom had served in that Constitutional Convention, followed the same precedent set by Thomas Jefferson. The same precedent was followed by Andrew Jackson. It remained for a great successor of Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic President, Grover Cleveland, to correctly envisage the danger to the Nation that might come from the breaking down of the third-term tradition. Note this prophetic utterance by Grover Cleveland:

When we consider the patronage of this great office, and the allurements of power, the temptation to retain public place once gained and, more than all, the availability a party finds in an incumbent whom a horde of officeholders, with zeal born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with money and trained political service, we recognize in the eligibility of the President for reelection a most serious danger to that calm, deliberate, and intelligent political action which must characterize a government by the people.

Now, gentlemen of the committee, we have witnessed within the past few years the building up of a vast bureaucracy, an army of officeholders, pensioners, and recipients of Federal largess that now clamor for a continuance in power of their patron, the present occupant of the White House. Can there be any doubt that Grover Cleveland's fears are being realized-that patronage and allurement of power are now conjoined to wreck constitutional government in the United States of America?

In conclusion, I urge upon this committee the adoption of Senate Joint Resolution 289, which provides that no President of the United States shall be eligible to hold that exalted office after having served