The Democrat. (Scotland Neck, Halifax Co., N.C.) 1884-1896, 1894-10-18
POPULAR Election Of Senator'S.
Youths Componion.


bv the legislatures Of three-fourths OF
the states, then the members OF the
Senate would be elected hereafter not
bv state legislatures but by popular
vote.
The resolution undoubtedly repre-
sents an opinion which prevails more
generally in the newer states than In
the older ones. In the original thir
teen states no sentiment in favor Of the
popular election OF senators has been
manifested excepting by occasional in
dividual expression of opinion.
In fact had any such proposition
been insisted upon at the time OF the
formation of the Constitution, it is
doubtful if Rhode Island, New York,
and perhaps some of the other states
would have accepted the proposed Con
stitutlon and come into the union.
Yet it must be admitted that in the
Younger states considerable number
of the citizens look upon the proposed
amendment as an important, perhaps
necessary change. Those who are OF
this opinion assert that the senators do
not come fresh from the people, and
therefore do not closely reflect the pop
ular will. For that reason it is assert
ed that the Senate is likely to tnwart
the desire of the people, Or at least to
be slow in perceiving and needing it.
Occasionally an indirect attempt has
been made to secure the election OF
senators by popular mandate. In 1898
Mr.. Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas
we're by common consent regarded as
the candidates of their respective par
ties for Senate, and with that under
standing made joint canvass OF Hi
n,is. which has become historic. The
legislature which was chosen was Dem
ocratlc, and Mr.. Douglas was therefore
chosen senator.
But this method, which has been
adopted more than once since that
time. Is different thing from direct,
popular election. 1t requires no amend
ment of the Constitution nor even
state law to put it in practice whenev-
er the people may desire.
The objections now raised against
the mode of electing senators were, IN
1851. the reasons for adopting that
method. The men who framed the
Constitution urged that the Senate
ought to he removed from the direct
influence OF popular clamor, and that
it ought not be subject to momentary
and parhaps erroneous impulses.
Their effort therefore was to make
the Senate unlike the House of Repre-
sentatives not only in length of the
term, in the smaller number OF mem
bers, and in the principle that a sem
atOr represents State as a whole rath
er than a certain number of the inhab-
itants of the State, but in the removal
OF the election one step from the peo-
pie.
Consequently it seems that what the
fathers designed by their provisions
respecting the Senate has been accom-
plished. The point now to be decid-
ed, and it is this upon which opinions
differ. is whether or not the object is
desirable.
1t really comes to this: Is it bet
ter that the Senate shall he conserva-
tive body, which will exercise its own
Judgment on all matters, or shall we
take steps to make 1t a body which
may be expected to vote as the House
of Representative does? This is a
question that is not to be answered off
hand. For although a radical transfer
nation of the Senate might be virtual
" the same as aboiishing the Senate,
there are many people In all the self
governing countries of the world who
believe that one legislative body is bet
ter than two.
The movement to curtail the power
of the House of Lords in Great Rrtan
is distinctly movement in the direc-
ton Of a single legislative assembly ex
ercising supreme authority.
Few Like Him.