Lodge Bill

Republican Henry Cabot Lodge in 1905

The Lodge Bill of 1890, also referred to as the Federal Elections Bill or by critics as the Lodge Force Bill, was a proposed bill to ensure the security of elections for U.S. Representatives. It was drafted and proposed by Representative Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts and sponsored in the Senate by George Frisbie Hoar with the endorsement of President Benjamin Harrison and all Republicans. The bill provided for the federal regulation of elections to the United States House of Representatives, which had heretofore been regulated by state governments. In particular, the bill would have permitted federal circuit courts (upon a petition by 500 citizens from any district) to appoint federal supervisors for congressional elections. Supervisors would have the power to attend elections, inspect registration lists, verify doubtful voter information, administer oaths to challenged voters, stop illegal immigrants from voting, and certify the vote count. ^[1] Perhaps most controversially, the supervisor would have the power to request Deputy United States Marshals to secure elections by force if deemed necessary.

The bill was created primarily to enforce the ability of blacks, predominantly Republican at the time, to vote in the Southern United States, as provided for in the constitution. The Fifteenth Amendment already formally guaranteed that right, but white southern Democrats had passed laws restricting voter registration and instituting electoral requirements, such as requiring payment of poll taxes and literacy tests (often waived if the prospective voter's grandfather had been a registered voter, the "grandfather clause"), that effectively prevented blacks from voting. That year Mississippi passed a new constitution that disfranchised most blacks, and other states would soon follow the "Mississippi plan".

After passing the House by just six votes, ^[2] the Lodge bill was successfully filibustered by Democrats in the Senate, with little action by the President of the Senate, Vice President Levi P. Morton, because Silver Republicans in the West traded it away for Southern support of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act and Northern Republicans traded it away for Southern support of the McKinley Tariff. ^{[3] [4]}

Background

The 15th Amendment to the US Constitution states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” ^[5] Its purpose was to acknowledge African American men’s voting rights. ^[6] After the passage of the 15th Amendment in 1870, African Americans were subjected to voting restrictions in certain states. Disenfranchisement of African Americans came in various forms, such as poll taxes, literacy tests, white primaries, and grandfather clauses.

Provisions

According to an article written on March 15 and published on March 16, 1890 from The New York Times , the Lodge Bill had 21 sections. ^[7]

WASHINGTON, March 15. — Representative Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, Chairman of the House Committee on the Election of President and Vice President and Representatives in Congress, to-day introduced a bill to regulate elections of Representatives in Congress. Mr. Lodge says the bill is very carefully drawn after consultation with many persons. It is a voluminous bill of twenty-one sections.

The article described the provisions of the law as follows:

1. Whenever 500 persons, voters and residents in any Congressional district of the United States, not less than two months prior to the next election of Representatives, petition the Judge of the District Court to place the next Congressional election in said district under the provisions of this act, it shall be the duty of such Judge to announce at once that the next Congressional election in said district will be held under the provisions of this act. The Judge shall then appoint such officers of election and registration and make such other provision for the conduct of the Congressional election as are hereafter provided.
2. There are to be two registers of voters for each voting precinct, one of whom shall be a member of the party which at the next preceding Presidential election polled the highest number of votes, and one a member of the party which polled the next highest number of votes. These registers are to prepare a preliminary list of the voters of their precinct, which shall be posted publicly and give notice that they will meet at specified times and places to register voters. Within three days after the posting of the preliminary lists the registers shall begin to hold meetings, which shall be public, to register all duly qualified voters who may come before them and who are not already registered. Registration shall cease not less than ten days before election. The second list of voters shall then be published, but no names shall be added after the close of registration, and no names shall be stricken off except on proof of death or removal from the Congressional district.
3. The ballots shall be of white paper of the weight ordinarily used in printing, and not more than eight nor less than six inches wide, nor more than ten nor less than eight inches long, and before distribution the ballots shall be so folded in marked creases that their width and length when folded shall be one-half the width and length herein specified. On the back and outside, when folded, shall be printed "Official ballot for Representative in Congress," followed by the designation of the polling place for which the ballot is proposed, the date of election and a fac simile of the signature of the clerk of the district who has caused the ballot to be printed. All ballots when printed shall be folded as herein before provided, and fastened together in such manner that each ballot may be detached and removed separately. A record of the number of ballots printed and furnished to each polling place shall be kept by the Clerk of the District Court.
4. There shall be provided for each voting place three sets of such ballots, each of not less than 100 for every 50 and fraction of 50 registered male voters therein, and it shall be the duty of the registrars of voters in each precinct to certify to the Clerk of the District Court, fourteen days previous to such election, the number of male registered voters in such voting precinct. Provision is also made for the printing and distribution of instructions for the guidance of voters as to obtaining ballots, manner of marking them, &c.
5. As to the manner of voting, it is provided that the inspectors (provision for which is made) and registrars in each voting precinct shall designate and appoint (and if they fail to at least five days before the election, then the Judge of the District Court shall designate and appoint) a polling place therein, at a convenient place, and shall cause to be provided a sufficient number of voting shelves or compartments at or in which voters may conveniently mark their ballots so that in the marking they may be screened from the observation of others; and a guard rail shall be so constructed and placed that only such persons as are inside of it can approach within twenty feet of the ballot boxes and of such shelves or compartments.
6. The arrangements shall be such that neither the ballot boxes nor the voting shelves or compartments shall be hidden from view of those outside the rail. The number of such shelves or compartments shall not be less than one for every seventy-five voters and not less than three in any precinct. Any person desiring to vote shall give his name and, if requested, his residence, to one of the registrars, who shall announce the same in a loud and distinct voice; and if such name be found upon the check list by the registrar he shall immediately report it and the voter shall be allowed to enter the space inclosed by the rail. He shall be furnished with but one ballot and his name then checked off. Besides the election officers no voters in excess of the number of voting shelves or compartments provided shall be allowed in said inclosed space at one time.
7. On receipt of his ballot the voter shall forthwith, and without leaving the inclosed space, retire alone to one of the voting shelves or compartments and prepare his ballot by marking in the appropriate margin or place a cross (X) opposite the name of the candidate of his choice for Congressman, or by filling in the name of the candidate of his choice in the blank space provided and marking a cross (X) opposite thereto. Before leaving the voting shelf or compartment the voter shall fold his ballot without displaying the marks thereon in the same way it was folded when received by him, and he shall keep the same so folded until he has voted. He shall then vote, after announcing his name to the inspector and having it checked on the inspectors' list before leaving the inclosed space, and shall deposit his ballot in the box with the official indorsement uppermost.
8. He shall mark and deposit his ballot without undue delay and shall quit the inclosed space as soon as he has voted. No voter shall be allowed to occupy a voting shelf or compartment already occupied by another, nor to remain within said inclosed space for more than six minutes, nor to occupy a voting shelf or compartment for more than five minutes, in case all of such shelves or compartments are in use and other voters are waiting to occupy them. No person shall take or remove any ballot from the polling place before the close of the polls.
9. Other sections provide that where there is no constitutional educational qualification voters who cannot read or see may receive the assistance of the inspectors in marking their ballots. A voter who purposely allows anyone to know how he is about to vote by showing his marked ballot, or any person who endeavors to induce a voter to show his marked ballot, shall be subject to a fine of from $50 to $500, and larger fines and penalties are to be imposed for destruction of election posters or supplies or for filing false certificates of nominations or for failure of election officers in their duties.
10. Challenges are not to be entertained for the purpose of delaying voting. The returns of elections are to be made in duplicate to the Clerk of the District Court, who, with the Judge of the court, is to compute the votes in each Congressional district and certify the result, as at present, to the Clerk of the House of Representatives, who is to place on the roll the names of the persons certified.
11. The Marshal of the court is required to furnish deputies to preserve order, under the direction of the election officers, and to secure to all duly qualified voters the peaceable exercise of their right to vote, but he is not to allow them to interfere with the election. Registrars are to receive $2 per day and inspectors and deputies $3. They are to be paid on certificate of the Clerk of the court, who is to pay the expense of printing ballots, and for these purposes the bill carries an appropriation of $500,000.

Support

Julius Caesar Chappelle (1852–1904) was among the earliest black Republican legislators in the northern United States, serving in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1883 to 1886. In 1890, Chappelle gave a political speech for the right of blacks to vote at an "enthusiastic" meeting at Boston's Faneuil Hall to support the federal elections bill. He was featured in a front page article in The New York Age newspaper covering his support of the Lodge bill. ^[8]

Alfred A. Taylor, a Republican from Tennessee, supported the Lodge Bill. Taylor was from East Tennessee, which remained a Republican stronghold during the Jim Crow era due to its Southern Unionist history during the Civil War. Taylor represented Tennessee's 1st congressional district from 1889 to 1895, and later served as Governor of Tennessee from 1921 to 1923. ^[9]

Legislative history

William M. Stewart's account

Republican Senator William M. Stewart of Nevada was instrumental to preventing the passage of the Lodge Bill, as Stewart described in detail in his own memoir, published in 1908. According to Stewart's memoir, the Lodge Bill was passed in the House of Representatives as H. R. 10958 in the 1st Session of the 51st Congress, and was defeated in the Senate during the 2nd session in 1891.

Relevant paragraphs of Stewart's memoir describing the legislative history of the bill and how he helped Democrats defeat the Lodge Bill are provided here.

Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts, then a member of the House, cooperated with the President, and on June 14, 1890, introduced a bill to amend the Federal election laws of the United States, which was referred to the select committee on elections of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress. This bill was so amended by the committee, and by Mr. Lodge on the floor of the House, that it practically placed all elections under special officers appointed by the President, backed by the military arm of the Government. It seemed to me that its passage would subvert the Government of the United States and substitute military dictation for civil authority in elections in the several States.

The contest in the House was elaborate and protracted, but finally on July 2, 1890, the bill passed the House by a vote of 155 to 149. There was a majority of about six in favor of the bill in the Senate. It was an Administration measure and Republican Senators, naturally supported it. It was a long bill, sweeping in its provisions, and sufficiently ambiguous to puzzle ordinary readers. I found by my conversation with Republican Senators that very few of them possessed any real knowledge of the provisions of the bill.

Benton McMillin of the House, afterward Governor of Tennessee, called at my rooms in the Shoreham Hotel shortly after the bill passed the House and found me examining its provisions. After some preliminary conversation he asked me what I thought of the measure, and if I thought it would pass the Senate. I told him I was very much opposed to the bill, but that there was only one chance of defeating it in the Senate, and that was by delay.

I said to him that there were many important measures pending before the Senate ; the tariff bill, and others of almost equal importance. If it could be so arranged as to consider those bills before the election bill, commonly called the "Force bill," so that it would not be considered in the long session, it might be defeated in the short session by debate and parliamentary tactics. I told him to tell his friends to keep quiet and supply what aid they could in placing the consideration of the Force bill after the tariff and other bills were disposed of. He reported to me from time to time such facts as he could learn with regard to the order of business. Finally a caUcus of the Republican Senators was called to arrange the order of business. I did all in my power to assist every Senator who had a favorite measure to advance its consideration, and it so happened that the Force bill was placed low on the calendar of measures to be considered, and was not reached during the long session.

Senator Gorman of Maryland, the leader of the Democratic party in the Senate, managed the opposition to the bill with skill and ability from the beginning. We consulted together constantly as to the mode of procedure.

Congress convened on December 1, 1890. The President in his message argued at some length in favor of the Force bill, and urgently recommended its passage. On December 3 the Senate resumed consideration of the Force bill, and Mr. Hoar immediately requested that that portion of the President's message relating to the Federal election law be read, which was accordingly done.

The message was an urgent appeal to Congress to pass the Lodge Force bill and place the control of elections in the Federal Executive. The bill was debated from time to time until the holidays intervened. ...

The Silver bill, in connection with other necessary bills, occupied the attention of the Senate until January 16, 1891, when the Senate again resumed consideration of the Force bill. ...

On January 20 Senator Aldrich moved to take up a resolution, previously introduced by him, amending the rules of the Senate so as to cut off debate at the will of the remainder of that session. The object of Mr. Aldrich and his associates, who were in favor of the Force bill, was to end debate so that a majority could pass the Force bill at will.

The rule was debated in connection with the Force bill until January 22, when it was side-tracked by the bill making an apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States. This was a very important bill, and it was necessary that it should be passed before the 4th of March in order to provide for the following fall elections. Mr. Wolcott had charge of the bill.

We canvassed the Senate thoroughly and ascertained that we would have a majority to take it up on January 22.

There were just enough Senators paired with those in favor of taking up the Apportionment bill to carry it by one majority without the vote of Senator Stanford, and by two majority with his vote. Senator Stanford had gone to New York, and a violent snow, hail, and rain-storm had cut off telegraphic communication between that city and Washington. However, before Senator Stanford left, in anticipation of the necessity of his vote, I called at his house and he told me I might pair him in favor of taking up the Apportionment bill at any time.

On January 22, according to our understanding. Senator Wolcott moved to take up the Apportionment bill, and demanded the yeas and nays. The various pairs were stated and arranged except that of Senator Stanford. I contended that he was in favor of taking up the Apportionment bill, and emphatically denied the right of any Senator to pair him against me. There the matter rested, and the Senator from California was not paired.

The Apportionment bill, when the vote was announced, was taken up by 35 to 34. The Senate then proceeded to the consideration of the bill, which required considerable time. It was conceded both by the friends and foes of the Force bill that it was too late in the session to consider it, in view of the Apportionment bill and appropriation bills then pending.

On the afternoon of that day I happened to be in the cloakroom, and heard one of the colored messengers remark that Senator Aldrich was going to New York that night. The train for New York was to leave at five o'clock, and I determined to make the trip myself. I took it for granted that his journey on that night was for the purpose of securing the vote of Senator Stanford to resume the consideration of the Force bill. ...

When I arrived Mrs. Stanford was in the parlor of the suite of rooms which she and the Senator occupied. I told her my business, and said that according to the understanding with the Senator, which, by the way, was agreed to when she was present, I would not allow him to be paired in favor of the Force bill. She said the Senator had met with a severe accident, having been thrown from a hansom in the afternoon of that day and quite severely bruised, and that it was unnecessary to disturb him, as she could attend to the business as well as he could. She said she knew what his views were and would make them known.

She called the Senator's secretary, and asked him for the dispatch which he had written to send as soon as the wires were again up between New York and Washington. It was directed to me, and read: Pair me against the Force bill and all matters connected therewith. (Signed) Leland Stanford.

I asked the secretary to go down stairs with me, and as we reached the office floor we met Senator Aldrich at the elevator on his way to visit Senator Stanford. I told him he was too late, and the clerk showed him the dispatch. He turned away, and there the matter dropped, and thus the Force bill was defeated, never again to be revived. After that it was never endorsed by the Republican party of the nation or of any State.

Aftermath

The First Vote, illustration by A.R. Waud, Harper’s Weekly, November 16, 1867

The Republican Party's commitment to African-American rights had already been declining since Reconstruction ended in 1877, and the 1890 Lodge Bill proved to be the last relic of the Republican commitment to civil rights. ^[10] The NAACP wrote to Lodge in 1919 to ask him to again draft a voting rights bill, but Lodge never responded, as Lodge and other Republicans were more focused on women's suffrage, World War I and the Spanish flu epidemic. ^[11] By 1919, and even more so by the following decade, the Republican Party had changed so much that they were actually usually to the right of the Democratic Party on economic issues; Lodge himself was known as one of the most conservative Republicans in the Senate, the leading opponent to the League of Nations, and one of the nation's leading nativists. ^[12]

The Lodge Bill was a precursor of the various Civil Rights legislation that followed. The bill's failure led to an increase in voter suppression until Congress passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The Voting Rights Act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices adopted in many southern states after the Civil War, including literacy tests. ^[13] It stated that "jurisdictions covered by these special provisions could not implement any change affecting voting until the Attorney General or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia determined that the change did not have a discriminatory purpose and would not have a discriminatory effect. In addition, the Attorney General could designate a county covered by these special provisions for the appointment of a federal examiner to review the qualifications of persons who wanted to register to vote. Further, in those counties where a federal examiner was serving, the Attorney General could request that federal observers monitor activities within the county's polling place. ^[14]

See also

• Henry Cabot Lodge
• Giles v. Harris , 189 U.S. 475 (1903)
• Benjamin Harrison
• Voter suppression
• Levi P. Morton
• Thomas Brackett Reed
• 1892 United States presidential election

References

1. Keyssar, Alexander (2000). The Right To Vote: The Contested History Of Democracy In The United States. Basic Books. p. 86. ISBN   978-0-465-02968-6.
2. "Black Americans in Congress: The Negroes' Temporary Farewell". Office of the Historian, House of Representatives. Retrieved May 9, 2017.
3. Hacker, Louis Morton; Kendrick, Benjamin Burks; Bahler, Helene Sara (1949). The United States Since 1865. Appleton-Century-Crofts. p. 74. OCLC   1153446414.
4. Hazard, Wendy (2004). "Thomas Brackett Reed, Civil Rights, and the Fight for Fair Elections". Maine History. 42 (1): 2.
5. "Constitution of the United States, Fifteenth Amendment". Congress.gov. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
6. "Suffrage in America: The 15th and 19th Amendments". National Park Service (nps.gov). USA.gov. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
7. "A FEDERAL ELECTION BILL; ONE TO SECURE GOVERNMENT SUPERVISION. THE MEASURE PREPARED BY HENRY CABOT LODGE TO OVERSEE THE SELECTION OF CONGRESSMEN" (PDF). March 16, 1890.
8. "At the Cradle of Liberty: Enthusiastic Endorsement of the Elections Bill," The New York Age, front page, Saturday, August 9, 1890.
9. Robert L. Taylor, Jr., "Alfred Alexander Taylor," Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, 2009. Retrieved: 6 December 2012.
10. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/compromise-1890 ^{[ bare URL ]}
11. Schneider, Mark R. (2019). "White Into Black: Boston's NAACP, 1909-1920". Boston Confronts Jim Crow, 1890-1920. Northeastern University Press. pp. 133–159. ISBN   978-1-55553-884-2. Project MUSE   chapter 2435957.
12. Gratton, Brian (January 2018). "Race or Politics? Henry Cabot Lodge and the Origins of the Immigration Restriction Movement in the United States". Journal of Policy History. 30 (1): 128–157. doi:10.1017/S0898030617000410.
13. "Our Documents - Voting Rights Act (1965)". www.ourdocuments.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-09.
14. "History Of Federal Voting Rights Laws". www.justice.gov. 2015-08-06. Retrieved 2020-04-09.