Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-06-22
ABoLIsHING STATE sENATEs.

The underlying and fundamental pur-
pose of government is to protect life and
property, and insure their enjoyment to
the governed. In this definition, no matter
how varied its forms, life and property are
never disassociated. But here we have the
Mobile Register (Aia.) demanding the abo-
ition of the State Senates because they
were instituted, in the first place, to defend
the rights Of property their sole use has
ceased-in the new States it never began"
Here, too, is the critical Chicago Current
joining in the cry, saying; We agree
with this view. And the United States
Senate should be remodeled as well, in so
far as it touches the ordinary legislation
of the land 1t has grown scan
dalous, I'M American, and ike the Execu-
tive power usurpatory." These are ad-
Fanced views, but not in a direction that
is progressive They reflect the cynical
sentiment which is always ready to pull
down, but less prompt to replace. The
assumption of the Register that State
Senates were instituted to defend the
rights Of property may be accepted, for
arguments sake. 1t will then be in order
TO ask whether the necessity for the crea-
ton has ceased to exist? Are we to con-
clude that the rights Of property are either
so secure as to no longer need legi slative
safeguards, or are antagonistic to free
government and should no longer be de-
Tended from spoliation. If property were
the measure of qualification for the ex-
ercise of the right Of suffrage, there
might be some force in the argument of
the Mobile paper. But since property is
mot directly represented, nor has any
special "refuge" in the Senates, the state
ment of the Register and Current is dog
matte and un-American. 1t is admitted
on all sides that under our representative
system the tendency of Legislatures is to
encroach upon the functions OF the non
legislative branches the executive and
Judicial Now the three were established
as checks or counter balances. The legis-
iative arm was divided, not to afford spe-
cial protection to property, but to secure
elaboration and to prevent hasty and inn
pulsive legislation. Both branches are
chosen directly by the people and from
among the people. They differ only in
title and in a somewhat extended tenure
of position on the part of Senators. The
qualifications for seats in either branch
are the same. Now it is clear that with
but one legislative body the encroach-
ments of the lawmaking power referred to
would be greater and more dangerous In
the National Legislature the House repre-
sents the direct choice Of the people at the
polls, while in the case of the Senate it
represents the legislative choice, and
hence only indirectly the will of the peo-
Pile But in the case of the State Legis-
Iatures there is no such distinction. 1t is
true that the Senate, being the lesser body,
Is chosen from larger districts, and Is there
fore representative Of the broader and de-
localized views of the people, while the
House, or Assembly, represents more par
ticularly local sentiments, preiudices and
the circumscribed desires of smaller COM
munities 1t reflects the will of the people
more frequently because frequently chosen,
but is not more representative Of the voting
class for that reason. That the concurrence
of both housesshall be had for the enactment
of law is simply a precaution to secure
cooler deliberation and more dispassionate
Judgment. The Senators holding longer
tenures of Office are less liable to beSwayed
by heated or passionate influences; are
freer from the disposition to truckle to