Legislation: Constitutional Plebiscite Amendment, 1789 (Passed)

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Speaker,

No government which does not trust its people, may expect or indeed deserve be trusted by its people. No college, no Assembly, no Magisterial Court may supplant the people as the foundation and embodiment of a free State. Insofar as the Constitution of such a State may be understood as the common property of the people, it is essential that the people by their ballots have the final say in its amendment.

I confess, Mr. Speaker, that on this principle I am unsurprised (though no less unhappy) to hear the opposition of the British Hamiltonians, who prove themselves Tory in their inclination and, with the late defections, Tory also in their composition. It is their stated policy, expressed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, to ignore the voice of the people, and to oppose at all costs their consultation, for fear the popular will may otherwise be insufficiently obscured and distorted by the deliberations of this body. To this bad system the gentleman from Pennsylvania gives the name 'democracy,' which we presume is his idea of a joke.

I will say it again, gentlemen: a government which trusts not its people, deserves not the trust of its people; and furthermore no faction which purports to represent 'American democracy,' while arguing against the consultation of the people on constitutional questions, may be known by any other name than liars and scoundrels.

I vote that the amendment to the federal Constitution be adopted, and recommend my fellow Whigs to follow so.

I yield my time to the chair.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Speaker,

The impotence of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (or perhaps he finds "nobleman" more to his liking) on the subject of democracy should be no surprise as the words of one whose professed political principle, as he was until recently the fervent disciple of British Toryism, is the establishment of an monarch in the person of the presidency over these States. It should be equally unsurprising, that he holds his opinion and his judgement in such high regard as to imagine himself a statesman of uncommon ability—far more able than those deluded peasants to ascertain whether a proposed amendment to the federal Constitution is conveyant to the general good.

Democracy, the good gentleman will remember, is rule by the people—not rule by the landed aristocracy. It is the case that under our present system, the people have yielded a part of their sovereignty to their elected representatives, that they may be untroubled by the minor matters of the conduct and administration of the State. It nevertheless remains that save God, their is no higher authority than the people in a republic, and the Will of God may flow through them. We do not call for every measure adopted by this Assembly to be put before a plebiscite as condition for its ratification. Yet on a matter as significant, as broad, and as permanent as an amendment to the Constitution—one which touches all and binds all—the people must be consulted, or else our federal Union ceases to be a republic and transforms itself as an oppressive oligarchy, wherein power is wielded upon, not on behalf of, the people.

If this second prospect seems British in its character or constitution, it is through no fault of mine. It was not my hand who signed the gentleman from Pennsylvania's name on the charter of Toryism in the late election. It was not my tongue what spoke from the gentleman from Westchester's mouth for shackling our economy to the whims of British merchants. It is not I, furthermore, who argue against consulting the people on questions of Constitutional significance on the grounds that they are too stupid, too base, and too easily deluded to know a good law from a bad one.

As it has been said before, I will say it again and again, that no government which trusts not its people deserves to be trusted by its people. The question before us is not a difficult one: either you are in favor of hearing the undiluted voice of the people on amendments to the Constitution, or you are not.

I yield my time to the chair.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Mr. Speaker,

Truly, the gentleman from Pennsylvania is so incensed by his own mad devotion to British monarchism that he now imagines to have heard whole orations which exist solely within the rotunda of his sturdy crown. The claims he attributes to me are wholly fictitious in their substance and origin—never have I, nor will I, claim a 'moral superiority' in comparison to any member of this honorable house, save as the humble vessel of almighty God, through whose unworthy form flows His divine, unalterable Will. If such devotion may be termed a moral crusade, then I submit myself as guilty to the charge.

As for the substance of his argument, the gentleman had better consult the record, for I have not the time to repeat myself again. If he does, he will find that I call for a plebiscite only on proposed amendments to the Constitution—trusting in other matters to the arbitration of the people's representatives. This is the model held to by our constituent States—indeed, by his own State of Pennsylvania—and I fail to see why its duplication by the federal Power should somehow bring about the horrors of anarchy and despotism he seems so to fear.

I yield my time to the chair.