Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-01-17
Determined Movement to Have the
Latter Select the United
States Senator'S
SUCCESS LOOKED FORWARD TO
BY the Advocates of a Change From the
Present System, Which They Con-
slider Unfair and
CAUSING CORRUPTION AND BRIBERY.
Speaker Crisp Able to Meet Committee and Talk
About House Rules


States Senators by a vote of the people is
destined TO be one of the most important
subjects discussed by the Fitty-second Con-
gress. 1t seems likely to be the one real
suhiect OF national interest upon which
party lines are not to be drawn, and from
this fact the advocates of the proposed re-
form derive great encouragement of ultimate
success
While it is probably true that of the
dozed joint resolutions on the subject in
troduced in the two Houses, or in course of
preparation, most of the authors are Demo-
Gratis, vet several of the most emphatic ad-
vocates of the constitutional amendment
are prominent Republicans. Senator Pal
mer, of Illinois, who has long stood as the
exponent of this popular principle in the
West, and who ascribes his election solely
10 the favor with which the pepple of
Illinois received the new theory, will take
charge of the reform movement in the Sem
ate, while Representative johnson, the Re-
publican Representative from North Da-
kota, will be the most aggressive advocate
Of the constitutional amendment in the
House.
In Representatives BRYAN, of Nebraska,
Enloe, of Tennessee, Springer, of Illinois,
warm cooperation, but to Representative
johnson will probably be conceded the
leadership OF the new movement, because of
his oft-repeated assertions that to viola
lion of that principle was solely due his de-
Ieat in the memorable Senatorial contest in
the State OF North Dakota.
.igitaton in the Committee Room.
The House Committee on Election of
President, Vice President and Representa-
tives in Congress, at a meeting to-day, gave
special attention to the various propositions
ior 4 constitutional amendment providing
fer the election of United States Senators
by direct vote of the people of the respec-
tive States. The committee was addressed
hv Representatives Miller, of Wisconsin;
Bryan, of Nebraska; Enloe, of Tennessee,
and johnson, of North Dakota, all
OF whom have propositions of this kind
pending before the committee. The
Joint resolution which Mr.. Miller urged
proposes a constitutional amendment Civ
ing one United States Senator to each
State, primarily and an additional Senator
lor each 1000, 900 of inhabitants, all to be
elected directly by the people. OF course,
this would work very radical change in
deed in the composition of the United
States Senate, but Mr. Miller contended
that the smaller States had disproportion-
and that his scheme would secure a more
equitable representation.
The other three speakers directed their
arguments generally to the broad question
of the advisability of election of Senators
by the direct vote of the people rather than
by the present methods, and then more
specifically to the points in favor of the
means proposed by them to bring this about.
They said the present method enabled men
IN he all Tod rp ha h1a L.
elected by popular vote, and who did not
represent the sentiment of their people.
Corruption Far Too Prevalent
Corporate influences, it was urged, were
too potent factor in the election of Sena-
tors by the Legislatures. Attention was
called to the frequency of charges of cor
ruptiOn and bribery made during and subse-
quent to elections of United States Sena-
tors.
Mr.. Enloe, of Tennessee, said that while
those investigations which had been made
into charges of corruption in the election of
Senators had generally been truitless vet
there was no doubt in the minds of thinking
and reading men that there was a substan-
tial foundation for the charges in MANY in
stances
Mr.. Powers, of Vermont, asked Mr.. En-
loe il popular elections might not result in
sending less able men to the Senate, and if |
the present method did not secure the ser
vices Of men of ability, who perhaps could |
not be induced to take part in a political |
contest such as was incident to elections.
Mr.. Enloe said it might possibly occur |
occasionally, as it sometimes did in all |
public elections, that men of inferior capa-
city might he chosen TO the Senate, but |
that the country would suffer less to have a |
fool in the Senate for six years than to |
have corrupt scoundrel.
Differences of Proposed Legislation.
The three constitutional amendments |
offered by Messrs. Bryan, of Nebraska; |
Enloe, of Tennessee, and johnson, of North |
Dakota, differ in this, that Mr.. Bryan's 1
amendment proposes that Senators shall be 1
elected by direct vote only in such States
as through their proper legislative ma
chinery decide to elect Senstors in this man
ner, while Messrs. Enioe and johnson pro-
pose that the ne~ method shall be compul-
sory as 10 all States on the adoption OF the
proposed amendment.
Mr. Bryan said that the argument in
iavor of the adoption of his amendment was
that the prospects of its adoption were
greater than if it made change compul-
sorv. States which did not care themselves
10 change their method of election of United
States Senators might be willing to agree to
an amendment which would give to such
States as preferred that method the right to
elect Senators by direct popular vote The
friends Of the amendment believed that the
result OF the election of Senators by direct
vote would be such as to popularize the new
method even in those States which were not
now willing to make the change and that in
time the change would commend itself to
ali the States, and gain all that could be
gained by compulsory amendment, while
not arouslng the antagonism that might be
ielt to an amendment requiring each State
to change Its present method.
One of the Arguments Sensational
Mr.. Enloe argued that if it were a good
thing to elect Senators by direct vote in one
State, 1t was certainly good thing to elect
them IN TINS manner in all the States. The
necessity was great wherever corporate in
huences became strong
The argument Of Nh. johnson was almost
sensational, because it contained much of
sls present experience. He stated that he
ras The Republican caucus nominee for
nited States Senator at the last Senatorial
lection In his State, but that he was de- /
ssted by corrupt combination. 1t might ,
'e only a limited view to take of the ques-
ion before the committee. but his experience
would illustrate the argument. He had Sc &
Ured the party nomination fairly, and as
lis party was in q majority in the State
legislature he felt confident of election.
lie was approached he said, bv the attor.
ey of q railroad corporation, and told that {
O make his election certain it was peces- I
ary that he give an assurance that he would
ayor a certain man as Judge for that dis :
rjct The attorney said that the railroad |