Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-08-05
HON. HARRY TUCKER
Why He Wishes Senator's Elected BY
The People.
HIS RECENT SPEECH.
N Able Argument. and Facts Produced
which the People should
Ponder.

The HOUSE having under consideration
he joint resolution Oh. Res. 0D proposing
N amendment 70 the. Constitution pro-
riding that senators shall be elected by
ne people OF tho several States
Mr.. Tucker said:
Mr.. Spcakcr,-I do not desire to detain
ne House with an elaborate discussion
II this measure. II is identically the same
resolution which passed the House TWO
bears ago, and when It was then under
consideration, on the 18th day OF July.
l&2. I discussed Il quito fully. and my
views on the subject are fully set forth
n that speech. Since that time the propo-
sition has grown IN popular favor AZ
mat time eleven States had Endorsed II
through their state Legislatures. and seve-
raj have been added to the list aimee
laen.
The argument against the proposition
may be briefly stated. as follows First,
that It destroys the representation OF
The States, as States, in the Senate as
was originally contemplated by the
trainers of the Constitution; the House
representing the people, and the senate
representing tho States. Second. that the
nltrating process OF electing senator's not
directly by the people, but through the
medium OF the Legislatures elected by
the people tends 10 secure more con-
servative class OF men less liable to the
lfuctuatione of popular continent. we
DO not regard either OF these positions as
tenable. The argument that senator's
now represent States because elected by
the present method. end would not II
chosen by the people. is clearly fallacious.
The idea OF tho trainers clearly was that
the States, as such, should be repre-
eented IN the Senate.
The body polltio called State must
not be COMPOUNDED with the government
Of State. The legislative, judicial ana
executive functions In n State constitute
its government. but neither one nor all
united constitute the political entity called
n State.
The power which every Independent
State or nation possesses In relation 10
its own immediate concerns Is unlimited
and uniimitable. so long as the State or
nation retains It's independence.
This unlimitable power is that supreme.
Irresistible. absolute, uncomfortable au-
ihority which by political writers in gem
eral is denOmlnated the sovereignty, and
which Is by most OF them supposed TO be
vested I'm the government, or adminlstra-
tive authority, of tine State. but which we
contend resides only in the people. Is
Inherent I'm them, and unalienable from
them--Tucker's Blackstone, volume J.
part !. Appendix, pages ana g.
How. then. Is the sovereignty Of the
States TO be expressed? II cannot De con-
tended that the Legislature Of a State
represents It's sovereignty. nor can 1t be
claimed that tho executive In the appoint
ment Of senator represents the sove-
reignty OF state. Nor can the mode OF
selection determine the province and pre-
scribe the authority of the agents chosen!
The mode Of election is one thing-what
IS represented by the agents selected an
entirely different proposition. The ques-
tion Is not the mode of selection. but
what is represented by the agents Sc
lected
Would our Ambassador TO Great Britain.
representing the sovereignty of our great
government. represent it any the less
v ere he appointed by the House of Repre-
scntatlVes rather than by the President
ly and with the consent OF the Senate?
And IL the States are TO be represented
in the Senate ms separate political entities
we appeal to gentlemen TO know how such
States can better be represented. ana
their sovereign power more completely
expressed than 10y the author and source
of its sovereignty in the State-that Is,
by the people.
THEN AND NON.
As to the second proposition. I do not
nttempt TO conceal my belief that in the
earlier history Of our country the Sc
lection by the Legislature resulted in the
election of more conservative men to the
Senate than the proposed method would
have done had 1t been then in vogue.
But the history of the election OF sena-
tors since the late war. in the changed
condition of our country. with its ever
varying political elements struggling FOR
supremacy. with its large increase of
corporate interests. and with the open at
tempt Of those interests to control In
governmental affairs. make 1t exceedingly
questionable whether the conservative
forces of the country do not rest rather
with the people of the country than the
great corporations which seliishly seek
90 control IT,
My honorable friend from Ohio Mr.
Northway) has sought in the remarks
which no has made on this subject to
criticise the report accompanying TINS
resolution. drawn by myself. and to eX-
press his dissent from some OF the views
therein expressed. He mentions for spe-
Cial criticism the following paragraph
The knightly courtesy which has always
distinguished the intercourse OF senator's
IN the parliamentary battles of the past.
and made the Senate OF the United states
In the eyes OF mankind the most impos-
tng delibsrative body in the worlds his
tory has been a powerful agency In ele-
waiting the public sentiment of our people
and kindiing afreSh the dying embers OF
patriotism in the country: Yet It Is
cravely doubted in the public mind, If
the press OF the country Is 10 be con-
sadered it's true exponent, whether such
courtesy can be used, without popular IN
dignation. as "A cloak for enacting sena-
torial falschoods.
IL the words 'Senatorial falsehoods"
under the courtesy due from this House
10 coordinate branch are deemed un-
parliamentary l deeply regret 1t. and In
defence OF their use, If defence be needed.
] beg TO say they are but a feeble express
sion OF more forceiul language used by
one senator 10 another on more than one
occasion In the recent history OF that
body
IL these be unparlamentary words used
by member OF this House in report
In reference 10 the Senate. they are words
that have been taken from the vocabulary
OF senatorial usage. and not from my
own. They are strong words. but are
weak when compared with those used
in the Senate itself by senators toward
senator's. Senatorial courtesy" as re-
Gently oeastrued and accepted In the
Senate and the failure OF that body TO
adopt rules Of conduct that would facli-
ate business have much to do with the
sentiment, now so generally expressed
for a change in the method OF their cleo
fion
Senatorial courtesy is to be applauded
rather than reprobated, but when sena-
tor abuses that courtesy. and uses II Tor
purposes for which 1t was never intended.
1t becomes a fraud.
SENATORIAL ABUSES.
With no rules In the Senate TO limit de-
bate. On the theory that no senator VIII
abuse such privilege. a senator rises TO
address the Senate-there Is no limit 10
DIS time; no senator can question his
sincerity IN speaking week. for this
Vould not be "courteous"-a delay OF
eoek may kill the measure under con-
eideration, but surrounded by the halo
OF senatorial courtesy he drags his weary
way along in consuming time In order to
Kill the measure. and no senator dare at
tempt 10 take him of the floor. or raise
fis voice In objection 20 his course, Tor
this would be breach OF the sacred prin-
cjple OF senatorial courtesy.
When so abused II Is a fraud. That
II has been so abused, none Will deny
s.rA<. he. ~ n SRn-