The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-01-12

eh a. soon as their character In made
apparent. There should be no barnacles
upon our ship of state.
Let US ask, then. why not abolish the
Senate! IL Us day of usefulness has de-
parted the answer viii be easy. though
It's application may prove difficult. II
that day OF usefulness is not yet spent
the TACT can be readily shown by the
apologists and defenders Of an institution
now undcr a IRE of criticism provoked
by It's own sins of omission and commits
sion.
With its elaborate system Of reference
ana procedure, why is rot the lower
house all sufficient to the processes Of
legislation? With the veto power in the
hands OF tho Chief Executive, why are
not all the proper demands Of consorva-
tism satlshed2 with nation composed
o. hai hundred States OF varying in
teTests, why may not the majority OF
their representatives. sitting IN ono house,
commissioned directly from the foun-
tam mead OF al power. be counted upon
10 90 the VIII Of their creators? or what
avail would separate election be where
The source Of power remains the same
The Times IS tight in saying tho hoi.
OF the fathers I'm copying the framcwork
or our Congress from that Of the Ensi sh
Parliament was to attain conservatism.
IL is quite as right. too, In pointing our
.hat the conservatism sought was The
result or heredity in Office. and not 81
method Of choice open 20 the people ~ "a
republic. Does not this very lire OF
reasoning bring rs 70 the conclusion THAT
the people should directly choose al their
eSslative representatives? IL so can
f. be shown that there IS need or adyan-
taee in having more than the one house
in which those representatives. shall per-
form their functions and acquit them
selves Of their obligations 20 their punci-
pais2
Ihat great advantage would result from
tho change. can be clearly shown Con-
s.der the most potent and important of
these advantages. and sec II any function
performed by the Senate will Offset them?
First Responsibility Of the representa-
tive would De- undivided.
Second. II would Doe more direct both
20 the local and general constituency.
Third Friction between coufeud.nr
opinions would be confined to the one
body The jarring and jealousy incident
TO two would be avoided
Fourth. Action would Doc facilitated
without implying hasty conclusion
Fifth Coercion would not apply as be-
tween tdO branches and dIckering TOR
the preference Of either. as controlled
hy the other would not intervene to CONF
plicate. corrupt or delay action
sixth. Simplicity and publicity ~ pfo-
cess would increase with simplicity NJ
construction. and keenor sense n JIM
mediate personal responsibility would grow
and operate in the Individual rcpresen-
tatiye.
Seventh. Official patronage and power
would be diminished. q host OF bureau
Gratis dissolved. and TIE intOlonble pres
sure for Office now exerted by the Senate
upon the Executive would Do ahated.
Eighth. Log-ro,ling in the one house
would be more difficult. and tho influence
OF lobby methods more liable 10 exposure
and defeat
Ninth. Economy would be Tremendously
served. not only IN a saving OF salaries
and expenses. but IN n limitation Of ape
preparations and private axe-grinding.
Many other good and substantial rea-
sons for tho change might be plinted ont
What can be said on the other side more
than has been said in tho time-wom
pleas OF conservatism and precedent? !
Shall we forever roast orr pigs by burn
ing doun houses. hecauee the first roast |
pig came by this costly road 10 a royal |
palate2
Conservatism and precedent are good |
and useful things IN their way bur go |
are knowledge and experience and these |
are the true servants ~ progress among |
and ambitious people. who |
grow I'm tho graces Of civilization as they /
detect Their errors and amend them.
Discuss the Senate then. by an means |
Point out it's errors its shortcomings ifs |
inherent ineficiencies. when n remedy |
is 10 Doe applied see II in an history you |
ron find justification for anything lass |
than abolition. Yours
John SIMPLEX. |