The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-02-05
THE SENATE NOT A REPRESENTA-
TIVE BODY.

TIVE BODY.
A few years ago, when the British House
of Lords took a position in open defiance
of public sentiment. the demand became
popular to mend it or end it," Neither has
been done yet, and will not be very soon.
The House of Lords cannot be ended with
out changing the British constitution and
form of government, and as long as the
sovereign has the power of creating peers
the people cannot mend it.
The British House of Lords never defied
public sentiment in any matter more openly
and brazenly than the United States Senate
recently did in the vote on the Teller reso-
luton. The Senate consists of ninety mem
bers. The vote on the resolution was AZ to
81, and If the members paired and not vot-
ing had been present it would have stood
80 to 81 Assuming that the Senate repre-
sents the entire American people this vote
would imply that more than half of them
favor Reputation by scaling down the pub
lie debt from the gold standard to the silver
standard, or about 50 cents on the dollar.
Everybody knows that this is not the case,
and that the Senate vote was very far from
representing the sentiment of the American
people. How grossly it misrepresented pop
ular sentiment may be inferred from the
fact that the vote Of Colorado, with a pop
ulation of 419,19S, offset that Of Massa-
chusetts, with a population of 2,25S,94S Ne
vada, with population of 45,761. neutralized
Pennsylvania, with a population of 5,25S, OLA;
Idaho, with population of S4,3S5, counter
balanced Ohio, with a population of 672,316;
Wyoming, with population Of 60, 7O5, offset
Illinois, with a population of S,S26,351 and
so on. Every one will understand the rea-
son of this disparity. The votes represented
States and not population political
sovereignties and not people. This is not
the first time the Senate has misrepresented
the people and defed public opinion, and
probably it will not be the last. The ques-
ton is how long will the people stand that
sort of thing without trying to devise some
remedy?
The provision of the Constitution which
gives each State, great or small populous
or sparsely settled two senators was one
of the compromises made by it's trainers to
secure its adoption. AS representation in
the other branch of Congress was based on
population the large States would have such
a preponderance in that body that the
smaller ones insisted on equalizing it in the
Senate. 1t was to that extent a departure
from the fundamental principle of the gov
eminent. popular representation and ma
jority rule But the unwisdom and injus-
tice of the provision were nothing like as
great or apparent when the Constitution
was adopted as they are now. The dispar-
ity in the populations of the States is far
greater now than it was then. When the
Constitution was adopted the four States
of Massachusetts, Connecticut Rhode
Island and New Hampshire had only 100000
inhabitants; New York had only 100000, and
the entire thirteen States only $4,000. Now
New York alone has 100000, and Indiana
then unheard of has more than twice the
population of the whole of New England
in 1890. Yet even at that time the smallest
State in the Union, Rhode Island, had a
population of $1,000, against the present day
rotten boroughs of Nevada, with 45,761, and
Wyoming, with 6O,705. Leaving out Rhode
Island, the disparity in the population of the
different States in 1896 was not such as to
suggest any great injustice in the standard
of senatorial representation, and it was
really a fair basis of compromise. But the
situation has changed. Time and the growth
OF population have emphasized the inherent
unfairness and unwisdom of plan which
enables two senators representing 45,761 per-
sons in Nevada to offset the votes of two
senators representing 5997, $50 in New York.
The Senate should not be ended, but it
should be mended. 1t might be mended by
changing the Constitution so as to make
senatorial representation depend upon pop
ulation, though with a much larger unit of
representation than that of the House. Why
should not a State have senator for each
half million of population and all States
with less population than that be restricted
to representation in the lower house or at
least to one senator? it would not be diff
cult to amend the Constitution so to pre-
vent a few senators from sparsely popu-
lated States misrepresenting the entire
country. The reasons which caused the
compromise basis of senatorial representa-
ton to be incorporated in the Constitution
no longer exist, while the reasons against
its continuance are very strong and likely
to continue so long as rotten borough
States like Colorado, Nevada, Idaho and
Wyoming are permitted by their votes in
tho Senate to misrepresent the millions of
honest men in other States by hammering
down the public credit and trying to COM
nit the government to a policy of infamy.
CORN Avn COTTON SEED