Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

more, according to the visitor, the President volunteered that he was determined to relinquish the task to a younger and a fresher man.

He said that he was beginning to feel a little tired, and that by 1940 he expected to be anxious to go home, conscious that he had done his stint. He even named the specifications for his successor, which were that the new man should be young-certainly under 60-that he should be energetic, and that he should be as fearless as a politician very well can be.

The President pointed out that an unusual equipment of courage and capacity for work would be necessary to enable any man to handle such situations as his successor would probably have to handle.

While both these incidents can be vouched for as authentic, it must, of course, always be remembered that Presidents can change their minds as easily as other men, and that Presidents can also occasionally shade the picture of their intentions.

Sources: New York Times, November 22, 1937, p. 2. Washington Star, November 22, 1937, p. A-13.

d. Press conference statement, February 5, 1940. Indirect quotations.

When anything is to be said on the subject of a third term, President Roosevelt told newspaper correspondents today, it will be at a time of his own choosing and not theirs.

They were warned that further questions on the subject were strictly taboo and would be considered out of order.

The President's first unsmiling reaction to inquiries upon his political plans was brought out at his press conference here. He suggested that the country probably was tired of all third term speculation and that further efforts to draw him out on the subject were silly, since he would not be hurried into an announcement of his plans.

*

*

*

*

*

He added that he was tired of being asked the question about his thirdterm plans, and that, surely, reporters must be tired of inquiring about them. Mr. Roosevelt chided the news desks of newspapers represented at the press conference. He said it was silly of them to continue pressing for an answer to his 1940 plans because, when anything was to be said, he would say it.

Reminded that when and if he chose to make his announcement it would be a readable despatch, the President agreed that that was a perfect observation, but that, nevertheless, every one was awfully tired of the subject. After all, you can drive a willing horse to death, both the press and the President.

A reporter, sensing the mind of the press conference, assured the President that the questions about a third term would continue to be asked until answered. Mr. Roosevelt replied with the warning that to do so would only put the questioner in a ridiculous or immature position.

But he was reminded again that reporters would not want to miss the President's timing of his announcement or to be behind the march of an important story. There the matter rested.

It was the first time that the President had responded other than to laugh aside questions about his 1940 plans since the first question was put to him in the Fall of 1937. Today there could be no mistaking his annoyance with the entire subject.

[blocks in formation]

Mr. Roosevelt, in making it clear that he was somewhat weary of parrying thrusts on the third term issue, has had some of that parrying to do at virtually every press conference for months. Never has he given a glimmer of his attitude toward another four years in the White House.

Instead he has suggested to reporters who tried to get him to show his hand that they don a dunce cap or stand in the corner. Lately he has been accusing them of having stayed up all night thinking up questions or of trying to be subtle.

Source: New York Times, February 6, 1940, p. 1.

(Margaret G. B. Blachly, July 18, 1941, Reference Files Section). Senator BAYH. I want to welcome you here, Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE MANSFIELD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA

Senator MANSFIELD. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate very much having this opportunity to appear before you. I welcome the chance to express at the outset of these hearings my views pertaining to the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the President to a single term of 6 years. I am particularly proud and pleased to join with the distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Aiken, in this endeavor which I personally regard as one of the most important reforms that our system of government could undergo.

In recent years there have been a number of significant amendments to the Constitution of the United States-for which you, Mr. Chairman, and members of this subcommittee, may take a great share of credit.

Correcting the matter of presidential succession and particularly extending the franchise of the ballot to young adults 18, 19, and 20 years of age represents enormous steps forward; steps that protect and enhance immensely the democratic process of this Nation. In my judgment there is still another step that must be taken in this area of constitutional evolution.

It is only in providing a single presidential term of 6 years, I believe, that this Nation will preserve for its highest office a sufficient degree of freedom and independence to function properly and adequately today and in the years ahead; years that will produce enormous trials and tensions on the national and global scale, some of which have yet to emerge.

By no means do I intend to imply that with this proposed amendment new ground is being broken or that a topic of first impression is here being raised.

Indeed, the suggestion of a single 6-year term has been with us ever since the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 thrashed over the question of a President's term and his eligibility for reelection. It is interesting to note that popular election was not considered with any great favor at all during the proceedings of that convention. But proposals limiting the tenure of the President were put forth and discussed.

Ultimately none were approved and the question then became moot when the suggestion for an electoral college system gained the widest support.

Since the Constitution was ratified hundreds of amendments have been introduced in the Senate and House of Representatives proposing a change in presidential tenure. More than 130 of these recommended a single term of 6 years. Twice, the House reported legislation providing for the 6-year term. And in 1913, the Senate passed Senate Joint Resolution 78 calling for a term of 6 years, but no action was taken by the other body.

Presidents themselves have been most active in their support for the concept. Nearly 150 years ago Andrew Jackson recommended that the electoral college be abolished-also a good suggestion-that the President be elected by direct vote and that he be limited to a single term of either 4 or 6 years.

Presidents Hayes and Cleveland and William Howard Taft also offered the proposal. In more recent years on this issue I have followed the lead of the able and distinguished Senator from Vermont, Mr. Aiken, the dean of the Republicans and a wise and prudent judge on all matters and particularly on those affecting the needs of democratic institutions in a rapidly changing world.

That brings up to today, Mr. Chairman, and I must say that the merits of the proposal dictate its need now as never before.

It is just intolerable that a President of the United States-any President, whatever his party-is compelled to devote his time, energy, and talents to what can be termed only as purely political tasks. I do not refer solely to a President's own reelection campaign. To be sure a reelection effort and all it entails are burdens enough. But a President facing reelection faces as well a host of demands that range from attending the needs of political officeholders, officeseekers, financial backers, and all the rest to riding herd on the day-to-day developments within the pedestrian partisan arena.

Surely this amendment does not represent a panacea for these ills which have grown up with our system of democracy. But it would go far, I think, in unsaddling the Presidency from many of these unnecessary political burdens that an incumbent bears.

Clearly such a change to a very great extent would free the President to devote a far greater measure of his time to the enormous task of serving all of the people of this Nation as the Chief Executive. More time would thus be provided for policy making and implementing, for program-initiating and for shaping and directing the kind of administration a President chooses. More time would be provided for the kind of experimentation that a successful Presidency requires; such experimentation has come too infrequently in recent years, and as a nation we are suffering from that inadequacy.

In short, 6 full years could be devoted to the job of the Presidency, in and of itself, a complicated and gigantic responsibility. Six years could be devoted, free of the burdens of seeking-however unavoidably-partisan political objectives and free of any potential conflicts inherent in such endeavors.

There is another aspect to this problem of reelection and it concerns not an incumbent President but rather those of the opposition; those who seek to gain the White House for their own. Certainly there is a great deal of room for constructive criticism, be it partisan or of whatever nature. Criticism is fundamental to our success as a nation.

It is what distinguishes us most as a free and open society. But there is another sort of criticism that a first-term President must face at times and no President can give his fullest attention to the country so long as he is barraged and fired upon by those who do not offer constructive advice and alternatives but who would instead hope only to weaken an incumbent's chances for reelection.

The effect of such vituperation when resorted to is just as invidious to the present two-term system as when an incumbent for similar partisan reasons puts political expediency before the Nation's interest. The President should be free to concentrate completely on his responsibilities. Electing him to a single term of 6 years, I think, would increase this probability.

And what of the arguments against this proposition? One raises the lame duck issue. The argument goes that when a President is elected

for a single term of 6 years, he immediately became a lameduck. But the same is true today as soon as a President has been reelected to a second term. The 22d amendment saw to that.

But it is really no argument at all. Lameness by no means is inherent in a single term. It relates in my judgment to the strength and quality of the man holding the office; should he be a "lameduck" President it is not because of any inhibitions imposed by a single term. An unlimited number of terms would not sustain such a man. On the other hand, a President who rises to his responsibilities will have sufficient opportunity to organize an effective and successful administration given a 6-year term to do so. Six years in office is sufficient time to effectuate all such policy aims a newly elected President entertains. Conversely, 6 years is also long enough for one man to endure in a position filled with the pressures and tensions, the worries and responsibilities of the Presidency of the United States. Adding to them, the stresses and strains of a reelection campaign simply makes no sense today. There are additional reasons, Mr. Chairman, with a single 6year term, gone would be the charge, however, invalid, that a President uses his power to appoint to achieve political ends and to pave the way for his reelection. For that matter, gone too would be the argument that decisions of foreign policy, of economics, and whatever would be politically motivated.

Then there is the matter of election costs. The price of a presidential campaign today has skyrocketed beyond reason. Should the trend continue what is faced every 4 years in terms of financial burdens can only lead to the financial ruin of one or more of our national parties. Spreading that financial strain to 6-year intervals should certainly ease some of the burden. Not to mention easing the burden that the electorate is compelled to undergo every 4 years. I think it would be welcome news in every household that the drawn out and tiresome events of national conventions and presidential campaigns would at least occur with less frequency.

To sum it up, Mr. Chairman, what this amendment seeks is to place the Office of the Presidency in a position that transcends as much as possible partisan political considerations of whatever nature and source. That it cannot do the job completely, I would agree. The man who achieves the Office carries with him his full political heritage. But its adoption would do much, I think, to streamline the Presidency in a manner that ultimately will make the position more fully responsive to the majority of all Americans.

Thank you.

Senator BAYI. Thank you, Senator Mansfield. Do you and Senator Aiken want to testify together or separately?

Senator MANSFIELD. If the chairman of the committee would allow

me, I would, as usual, like to testify with Senator Aiken.

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE D. AIKEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT

Senator AIKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate your holding this hearing at this time because I feel what we have proposed is extremely important in this day and age.

I assure you there has been no collusion between Senator Mansfield and myself in preparing our statements because I haven't seen his

statement until I heard it read and I don't think he has seen mine either.

But while I am appearing before this committee today in support of the constitutional amendment, proposed by Senator Mansfield and myself. I do not by any means regard it as a panacea for curing all the ills of our form of government.

In fact, the human race has a long, long way to go before we learn. to govern ourselves fairly and efficiently.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the most heated debate was over the selection of a satisfactory method of electing a President.

After over 60 ballots had been taken, the 4-year term with no restriction on reelection was decided upon.

This was obviously a compromise between those who favored a single term for President and those who supported an unlimited tenure of this office.

After that momentous decision of 1787 was agreed to our Nation functioned under its provisions until 1951 when the two-term limitation was adopted as an amendment to our Constitution.

I might point out here in regard to the charge that a single term makes the President a "lameduck," that President Eisenhower was the first President to hold office under the limitation of two 4-year terms and his last 2 years in office were probably the most productive of the entire 8 years.

Although the constitutional provisions did not change during the 1787-1951 period, the debate still went on and at least 130 proposals have been made in the Congress to change the presidential term from 4 years to 6 years with a great majority of these proposals making the President ineligible for reelection.

Presidents Jackson, Harrison, Buchanan, and Hayes all supported a single term while President Wilson openly opposed such a limitation. After leaving the office, ex-President William H. Taft expressed himself as favoring a presidential term of 6 or 7 years.

In a lecture at Columbia University in 1915 he stated-and Senator Mansfield has already referred to President Taft's position but I think it would be well to read what he said into the record

I am strongly inclined to the view that it would have been a wiser provision, as it was at one time voted in the Convention to make the term of the President 6 or 7 years, and render him ineligible thereafter. Such a change would give to the executive greater courage and independence in the discharge of his duties. The absorbing and diverting interest in the reelection of the incumbent, taken by those Federal civil servants who regard their own tenure as dependent upon his, would disappear and the efficiency of administration in the last 18 months of a term would be maintained.

In his autobiography, published in 1929, President Coolidge, while not supporting the single-term concept, gave an excellent reason for its adoption:

It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness.

They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exaltation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.

The chances of having wise and faithful public service are increased by a change in the presidential office after a moderate length of time.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »