Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1889-07-26
.ANuAsTER. PA. July 2e, 1859.


When the delegates of North Dakota
In the process Of making their constitu-
tion came to consider the proposition to
have but single body Of the Legisla-
tnre, they tackled pretty big subject.
One Of the delegates delivered a care
fully prepared speech advocating the
adoption of the resolution and cited the
fact that the Declaration of 1ndepen-
dence was promulgated by single body;
that the constitutions of the states have
all bcen adopted by single bodies, and
that the great cities with their vast pop
ulation and extended commerce are gov.
erned by single bodies.
'.saThe problem which Is the better sys-
tenn is not one of easy solving. Many
advantages can be urged In favor Of
18th theories. In England In view Of
the increasing usclessness of the House
0f Lords the question Of whether the
House Of Commons should not he the
governing power in name as II really is In
fact, is receiving considerable attention.
A government with dual Legislature
seems to be characteristic of the nations
Of Teutonic origin. II has descended to
M from the Goths and Celts and other
northern tribes that overran Europe y
On the other hand, the nations of lower
Europe sprung from the Latins, and
taking their pattern from the RoHan
Senate, have almost consistently adhered
to the single legislature.
When our national constitution was
formed the question was treated as an
original one. Benjamin franklin, who
was then president of ,Kennsylvania,
which state at time ha;'P. I one legisla-
tive chamber, vigoro'I ST. advocated the
one-housc system. Mar preponderancc
OF opinion was sh, bnt him, and our
Congress has novice 70 houses. There is
much reason, however, why the national
legislative body should have two houses.
The lower is the popular representative
body ana the Senate represents the au-
tonomy OF the states. We say nothing
OF the capture in recent years of that
body by rich monopolists and railroad
corporations. Our point has to do only
with the principle, which was n proper
one to adopt when the national govern
ment was formed.
However clear and forcible the reasons
Tor dual federal legislature are, it is not
20 evident why this form should he nd
hered to by the states and there is much
less reason for cities to be hampered in
their government by the cumbersome
double body-some of the large cities
have only one body and experience
shows tito be the best. When both
bodies are formed from representatives
voted for and sent by the same people
the reason for their necessity ceases. II
y ridiculous to vote for senator and rep
resentatives or for members of select or
common council when one body could
better perform the same duties. There
is nothing in the argument that the one
ID check and balance on the other. II
oftener does more harm by forming
dead-locks than it does good in its re-
straining power.
Asingl9 governing and law-making
body wokld he for many reasons pref
cradle il state and city government.
There would be no divided responsibili.
" and no shifting of ofduties-with gov
trpcT or mayor having "A veto power
thee Is sufficient check. On the whole
II would I've more serviceable, less ex-
pensive, more responsible and less cum
bersome. 1t would be novel but use
fnl experiment for the delegates of some
Of the new states to do away with the
superhuous extra body, and have sin
gle popular assembly directly response
bic to the sovereign people.