Evening star., 1947-02-28
Letters to The Star
Alexander Hamilton Quoted
On Third Term Issue


On Third-Term Issue
To the Editor Of The Star:
Your masterful editorial Third Term
Ban," truly represents the most logical
viewpoint any sensible person could
take regarding the proposed Constitu-
tional amendment to limit presidential
tenure to two terms.
Sorry. indeed, have been the efforts
thus far Of those who espouse this pro-
posal to justify it. including the views
Of your Mr.. David Lawrence. In less
than a half column your editorial de-
liyered the most devastating retort to
y their views have read thus far.
was especially interested in how
closely the logic OF your editorial fol-
lowed that Of Alexander Hamilton,
whose views on the matter In those
early days no doubt carried great weight
with his colleagues.
In The Federalist Paper No. ~, at
tributed to Hamilton, we read as fol-
lows: There Is no nation which has
not, at one period or another, expert
enced an absolute necessity of the serv-
ices OF particular men In particular
situations; perhaps 1t would not be too
strong to say, to the preservation of
its political existence. How unwise,
therefore, must be every such self deny
ing ordinance as serves to prohibit a
nation from making use Of its own citi-
zens In the manner best suited to its
ezigencies and circumstances"
Not Trusting the People.
The fact that the founding fathers
did not place limitation clause In our
national charter would seem to indicate
that they felt that the people who
could be trusted to elect a President
twice to office could also be trusted to
: determine whether or not they desire
him for a third, fourth, or even q fifth
term. To deny them this trust would
be to say they could not even be trusted
to make wise choice in the first place.
The proposed amendment as passed
by the House calls for it to be ratified
by the State Legislatures. It Is incon-
ceivable that SO important an amend
ment should not be ratified through
constitutional conventions whereby the
electorate could express its will regard
ing the matter. It appears that the
COP, whose brain-child the proposed
amendment is, has deliberately sought
to deny the electorate from expressing
its will. Could this be because they
are in control Of so many of the State
Legislatures above the Mason-Dixon
Line? Does the idea of letting the peo-
pie vote direct strike terror in their
hearts? They know full well the answer
to the subject which the amendment
involves was answered in the presi-
dental elections Of 1910 and 1914, and
quite overwhelmingly.
Amusing, indeed, it is to find Repub-
hcans quoting Jefferson, the arch enemy
OF their patron saint, Hamilton; also
to find them in conflict with Hamil-
tons own views on this subject. It is
historic fact that while Jefferson did
not want third term he was quite
willing to run If there was such a d.
vision about successor as might result
IN the election Of a monarchist.
The Crux of the Question.
Hamilton's theory proved quite loei-
cal in 40 and ~. David Lawrence, of
course, benoans the third and fourth
Roosevelt terms. Said he in effect in
recent article, could any one say that
had either Dewey or Willkie been
elected they would have been any diff
ferently disposed toward the conduct
Of the war than Franklin D. Roosevelt?
Well, my answer to so stupid a question
is, Thank God we did not have to
find out"
The crux Of the whole matter Is,
does any one think for moment that If
this Nation were in dire stress, its peo-
pie bordering on civil war, that mere
provision in the Constitution would
thwart them in their choice Of what
they felt was the right man for the
situation? The answer is no and I
dare say that their will would be backed
up by force of arms.
The people would do well to reject
this proposed amendment. At best its
advantages are but speculative and
equivocal while its disadvantages are
far more certain and decisive.
CHARLES H. HASKINs.
n Al nj