It must be and it will be! Do not misunderstand me; I do not for one moment believe that we ought to interfere with the purely domestic affairs of any other nation on earth; but, gentlemen, when in the administration of its domestic affairs by any Government it so conducts them at home or abroad as to be a constant menace to the peace of the world the same sentiments which inspired us to fight for our liberties in 1776 must lead us now in the world conquest in 1917. For the safety of our national sovereignty we announced and have defended the Monroe doctrine. For the same reason we entered into this war. For the same reason we will continue in it until we shall win. For the same reason we must take our seat at the council table and lend a hand in drafting the terms of peace.

OUR FUTURE RESPONSIBILITY.

What shall be our program, then? In this great world catastrophe it is not given to the human mind to see a year or even a month in advance what the duty of the hour may require. "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

But this much I believe:

First. We ought to use all our powers of moral suasion to induce the nations of the world to adopt the policy of gradual disarmament. Most of the civilized nations have favored this program for years. Germany, and Germany alone, has opposed it. As a result, while Germany was adding to her forces on land and on sea, the other nations of the world, half suspicious and yet half deceived by Germany's siren song of peace, were only either half prepared or not at all prepared when the trumpet call to battle sounded. The world's peace can not be safe when one nation is fully armed and the others only partially armed. That every nation should be fully armed or even half armed is a waste of men and of treasure. Why, then, should we not, in the interest of safety, use the good offices of this great Government to bring about disarmament? It should not be within the power of the German Imperial Government, or any other Government, to threaten the safety of the world.

As we persisted in our efforts for world peace before this world war began, so after the war shall have been ended we must still continue the battle for peace by diplomacy, by negotiation, by arbitration, rather than by force of arms.

Second. What further measures shall be adopted? Shall there be a League of Peace; and if so, with what powers shall it be vested? That something along this line must be attempted is apparent. Maybe it will not succeed; maybe it will fail, but certain it is, it can not be a greater failure in the maintenance of peace than past methods. If there is a League of Peace empowered to enter decrees, after full investigation and full hearing, by what power shall they be enforced? My belief is that the power of the world's public opinion will, in most instances, be sufficient to enforce decrees which are impartially entered. Will it be necessary to employ armies and navies subject to the control and direction of the League of Peace? These are questions which must be intrusted to the President of the Republic, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, under the guidance of true American sentiment. These are questions which are ap.

S D-65-1-vol 11-4

proaching us and which we must meet. Those in authority will wel come and profit by the advice of the world's thinkers everywhere, and I know of no body of men who can be of more service in this great task than the lawyers of America. But whatever shall be done, if it is to be of profit to the nation and to the world, must be undertaken by the practical minds of the world, and not by visionary dreamers and theorists. Statesmen must take counsel of fact, not of fiction. A pound of fact is worth a ton of theory. America can not build a Chinese wall about her, and thus confined perform her functions and play her part on the world's great stage. Destiny calls America to lead, and she will lead, taking counsel of the world's wisdom. We must not be affrighted because a hundred millions of people in 1917 must play a more important part in world's affairs than did three millions of people 140 years ago.

"There's a divinity that shapes our ends,
Rough-hew them how we will."

O

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WITH RELATION TO NATIONAL PROHIBITION

MEMORANDUM

ON

THE NATURE AND METHOD OF AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RELATIONSHIP TO NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION

BY

MR. JAMES T. LLOYD

PRESENTED BY MR. STONE

JULY 30, 1917.-Ordered to be printed

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

PROHIBITION.

By JAMES T. LLOYD.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

The Constitution, Article V, settles the terms upon which and the method by which the Constitution may be amended.

Article V is as follows:

The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, That no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article, and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This article contemplates, so far as the proposal of amendments is concerned

(a) That amendments shall be proposed by Congress by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses concurring; or,

(b) That upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States Congress shall call a convention for proposing amendments. The article further contemplates that any proposed amendment shall become a valid part of the Constitution upon ratification

(a) By the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States; or, (b) By conventions in three-fourths of the several States. The Congress in submitting an amendment can direct, in its discretion, whether it shall be ratified by the legislatures or by conventions called in the States.

The President has no function respecting amendments. It has been held that his approval is unnecessary to the resolution by Congress. (Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dalí., 378.)

HISTORICAL ASPECTS.

The first amendments to the Constitution were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789, 12 being proposed, of which 10 were adopted, and these constitute the so-called Federal Bill of Rights. They were demanded by the several States as additional checks upon the Federal power

These proposals of 1789 were submitted by Congress for ratification by the legislatures. Since that time all amendments proposed have been for ratification by the legislatures.

The chief criticism which has been leveled in recent years at the legislative method of ratifying amendments is based on the possibility of a constitutional amendment remaining proposed and unratified over a long period of years, with a possible ratification far in the future when the occasion for the amendment, the public demand therefor, and popular approval thereof would have lapsed in the Nation at large.

It has been established (and the recent income-tax amendment is a good illustration of the practice) that a State legislature may