WAR REFERENDUM WEDNESDAY, MAY 10, 1939 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., in the committee room, Capitol. Hon. Carl A. Hatch (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Hatch (chairman), Miller, and Wiley. Present also: Senator William E. Borah and Senator Robert M. La Follette, Jr. Mr. HATCH. The committee will come to order. We have under consideration this morning Senate Joint Resolution 84, proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States for a referendum on war. The resolution will be incorporated into the record at this point. (The resolution referred to is as follows:) [S. J. RES. 84, 76th Cong., 1st sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States for a referendum on war Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States: "SECTION 1. Except in case of attack by armed forces, actual or immediately threatened, upon the United States or its Territorial possessions, or by any nonAmerican nation against any country in the Western Hemisphere, the people shall have the sole power by a national referendum to declare war or to engage in warfare overseas. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist in conformance with this article, shall by concurrent resolution refer the question to the people. "SEC. 2. Congress shall by law provide for the enforcement of this section. "SEC. 3. This article shall become operative when ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution." Senator HATCH. We have as witnesses this morning Senator La Follette and Mr. Morris Ernst, and the committee will be glad to hear them now. Senator La Follette, are you ready to proceed? STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, JR., A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator LA FOLLETTE. Yes. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, at the outset, I wish to express appreciation, on behalf of myself and the other 11 Senators who join in introducing this joint resolution, for the courtesy and cooperation which we have received from the chairman of the committee and the members of the committee in arranging for hearings on this proposal. It is not my purpose to make a lengthy statement this morning, because I prefer to give the time to these witnesses who have come here voluntarily from out of town to present their points of view with regard to this important question. However, it seemed appropriate that some brief statement should be made; and I appreciate the opportunity that you have given me to appear here and to testify. The joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution which would give the people the right to vote on the issue of waging an offensive war abroad has provoked attacks against it by people who have been misinformed, and in some instances the attacks have been sheer nonsense. The sincere and profound desire of our people to have a vital and authoritative voice in the matter of their life and death has even been made the subject of dishonest and unfounded witicisms. Let me say at the outset that the demand by the people for the right to make the momentous decision for or against an offensive war outside of this hemisphere and not waged to defend our possessions cannot be answered by derision. This proposition is based upon faith in the democratic process. It presents the issue of permitting the voice of the people to register its will on the question of life or death for millions. I want to emphasize that this resolution is so drawn as to leave with the Congress the right to declare war in any case where the invasion, cr the threatened invasion, of this country, this hemisphere, or our possessions is involved. This means that Congress would only submit a question of war to the voters where an offensive war on foreign soil was contemplated. Therefore, I hope this subcommittee will insist upon stripping off from this proposal the absurd fears which some opponents in and out of Congress have sought to attach to it. There is nothing in the pending proposal which will cripple any President in his conduct of our foreign policy so long as that policy is not to be implemented in the end by involving this Nation in an offensive war overseas. I do not believe that there is validity in the proposition that there are effective measures short of war, but if there are those who take an opposite view, this proposal for a referendum on foreign war will strengthen and buttress that position. In short, this joint resolution takes at their word the spokesmen for the administration's foreign policy who maintain that it does not involve any danger or risk of war. If nothing is being done or urged upon Congress which will lead to our involvement in foreign war than it cannot be logically maintained that this joint resolution cripples the administion's foreign policy in any way. It has recently been suggested that Congress should remain in session to prevent measures leading to war from being taken. I have been a Member of the Senate for 13 years and I have great respect for the Membership of both Houses of Congress but I believe history proves that the legislative branch of our Government cannot prevent diplomatic measures from being taken which lead to war. Congress has no veto power in practical fact. Congress has only the power to write bankrupt across a foreign policy when that policy has finally culminated in a demand by the Executive that Congress vote a declaration of war. Then it writes it with cheers mixed with epithets and howls of derision against those few men who may oppose the resolution declaring a state of war. It has been charged by opponents that this joint resolution violates our traditional form of government which they contend is purely representative in character. The same argument could have been made against woman suffrage and the direct election of United States Senators. Several States have incorporated the referendum proposal in their constitutions without impairing their traditional forms of government. The Democratic Party in convention assembled, in 1924, without a single voice of opposition so far as I have been able to ascertain, advocated that "* Our Government should secure a joint agreement with all nations for world disarmament and also for a referendum on war, except in case of actual or threatened attack. Those who furnish the blood and bear the burdens of war, should, whenever possible, be consulted before this supreme sacrifice is required of them." * * I venture the assertion that there is not a single Member of Congress today who has received a mandate from the people to act in his capacity as a representative to put this Nation into war in Europe, Asia, or Africa. I cannot find a single member who raised that issue in his campaign unless he was on the negative side of it. We have no mandate from the people on this question, nor could it be fairly said that Members of Congress would ever be in possession of such a mandate unless a whole congressional campaign had been waged on that issue and that alone. Only then could Members of the legislative branch of our Federal Government say in any halfway accurate or honest sense that they represented the people of their respective States and Districts on the war issue. If, in the future, Congress is presented with a demand by the Executive that it vote a declaration of war-not a war of defense but a war abroad-I am certain that they will not be acting in a representative capacity for it is not conceivable to me that under any circumstances Members of Congress will be standing upon platforms pledging that if elected they will vote to plunge the United States into an offensive war on foreign soil. Instead, if that unfortunate issue is presented, I think history will repeat itself and that rather than acting in a representative capacity Congress will be forced to approve the Executive decision and to make the best of Executive failure. I fear in the future, as in the past, that the congressional function will be to vote the declaration demanded and to follow it with conscription and the necessary funds to carry on the war. This is a function but it is a stretch of the imagination to characterize it as a representative function. No |