St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1889-07-11


active part in political matters, he still
retains his health and mental vigor, and
the advancing years have only con-
firmed his belief in the necessity for
abolishing the senate as part OF
state legislative body. 1t is a note
worthy fact that not single member of
the Ohio convention of 1850 attempted
reply to Col. ROBERTSON'S argument,
but the dual provision was retained in
the Ohio constitution, as it has been re-
tanned in other constitutions, simply
because of the traditional prejudice
against innovations.
The GLOBE has already expressed is
advocacy of the single house idea, and
in further support of our position we
submit the following extracts from Col.
RoBERTsON's speech,
"Our greatest difficulty is to deter
mine the manner in which we shall
fairly provide for the division of the
state into senatorial districts. The con-
sideration of this difficulty has prompted
the inquiry: May not the senate be
dispensed with altogether? If we can
dispense with the senate, and get along
as we'll with a single Legislative body,
the difficulty vaniShes, and we will soon
be able to agree upon plan for a self
adjusting apportionment of this state
into legislative districts.
For long time have been convinced
that a senate for legislative purposes, in
a free state, is wholly unnecessary and
worse than useless. The senate has
been preserved in the new states OF this
Union only because it had been
branch of the old state governments as
originally framed. Like the fctions in
law, the senate is retained by the infiu
ence of custom and precedent after the
reason for it has passed away. The
reason, we will find upon examination,
for plural legislative body no longer
exists. Why was the senate originally
made part of our state governments? 1t
was intended to operate as check upon
the people, who were supposed to be
fully represented in the popular branch.
To accomplish this end the senate
originally, in almost every state of this
Union, represented the landed interest,
and thus was that body, to some extent,
animitation of the British house of lords.
There was a good reason for adopting
something like the British legislative
system in our national government,
where distinct soveTeignties were rep
resented. There is nothing in our
federal system more happily adjusted
than this mutual balance OF powers. A
single national legislative branch might
soon shipwreck this glorious Union.
The house of representatives maintains
the sovereignty of the people; the
senate, the rights of the states. Little
Delaware and Rhode Island are as
powerful in the senate of the United
States as the Empire State of New
York, or Pennsylvania, the Keystone!
But no analogous reason exists for a
plural legislature in this state. Wher-
ever plural sovereignties are recog-
nized, a plural legislature may be
proper, as in the British government,
where the house of lords represents the
nobility and the church the house Of
commons, in part, the people.
81 can see no good reason for following
the British precedent of a senate in our
state governments. We have no mate
rial out of which to construct that
branch. We have but one sovereignty,
embracing the whole people-how prone
we are to follow the precedent without
inquiry or reflection. We often act like
the Italian peasant who threw pan
nier upon his donkey, filled one side
with marketing, and balanced it on the
other with stone, and, when asked for
the reason, answered that his father
had always done so before him. and he
saw no cause for change. The peas
ant was not alone in his attachment to
precedent; for among those who pos
sesS intellect and cultivated minds we
find similar blind attachment to prec-
edents, manifested often in a more dig
nified manner; sometimes with oWliSh
gravity and much display of learning,
talents and brilliancy. We are gen,
orally too lethargic in intellect, and
have so much else to do that we care
not to inquire whether we have always
been right in the past; and it is only
when accident or some pressing neceS-
Sity arrests our course that we stop tC
inquire, Is this necessary? is it right
|
"Thus it is that the difficulty of max
ing permanent apportlonment of the
state for senatorial purposes has &C
cidentally started the inquiry, Must we
have a senate? The fathers Of this re-
public, who promulgated the demo
cratic theory of government, were, to a
great extent, afraid to risk its applica-
ton in practice. Many of them dreaded
the unshackled power of the people.
This fear originated the senatorial
branch of the state legislatures. Shall
we then longer retain the senate as a
check upon the supposed indiscretions
of the people? If that be the object, il
will fail, as it has failed heretofore: as
it failed in 1910, when the Wings carried
the state; as it failed in 1913, when the
Democrats carried the state. Senators
will be as liable as other men to be car
ried away by passion, whenever storm
o political excitement may arise in the
state. The only Mariner in which | car
imagine a senate to be check upon the
will of the people is when that body
does not represent the dominant party
in the state, and then we would have &
conflict between the house and the sch
ate, such as has often been witnessed
in this and other states. There may be
an appearance of deliberation, bu
there is in reality only party conflict,
often carried on with great bitterness
rarely productive of beneficial results
and generally the cause of violent
political animosities. Under such cir
cumstances, both parties will go to ex
tremes and perform acts that would
never be provoked if they did mo-
mutually check the will and power OF
each other.
Immediate, undivided responsibility
to the people is at last the only infu
ence that will insure deliberation anG
q faithful discharge of duty by public