The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-01
Two Reasons Against Il.

Two Reasons Against Il.
The courage and conscientiousness OF
the senate in performing its duty in the
Clark and Quay cases has taken some
OF the wind out Of the sails of the de-
mand for an election Of senators by di.
rect vote Of the people. The agitation,
to tell the truth, for that change comes
rather from the thoughtless and those
who want to declaim over imaginary
abuses than from real advocates of good
government. For there are at least two
reasons against 1t which should be con-
elusive.
One might almost parody the defence
Of the man accused OF injuring a Dor
rowed kettle. who claimed that he never
borrowed any kettle and also that 1t was
In good condition when ne returned it.
For II IL true that there IL no real gain
to be expected by direct election Of SEN
ators. and also that the system is al
ready In operation In a large number
Of the states and is open to adoption by
all at their pleasure. A moments refiec-
ton on these facts should convince the
voter that the proposed amendment to
the constitution ID Of neither conse-
quence nor value.
There IL no reason to suppose that d.
rect election of senators by popular vote
would improve the quality Of that body.
The proof is In experience. Compare
the house Of representatives with the
senate. Is the former body more intelli-
gent, more disinterested. less approach
able by the solicitations Of wealth or
influence? Compare the governors of
the several states with their represen-
tatives In the United States senate. TAX
ing the country as a whole. is there
better material in the executive ONCE
or in the senate chamber at Washing
ton? There is certainly no reason TO
suppose that a choice by direct vote of
the people would result more advanta-
geously in the case of one Office than In
another.
A most fallacious argument 10 that
election by popular vote would destroy
or restrict the use of money to secure
an election to the senate. The tyro In
politics knows better than that. II
election we're by direct vote. effort would
be concentrated upon securing the NOM
ination In party conventions; for a
nomination by the majority party would
be equivalent to an election. Now we
fancy that no man with the slightest
experience will deny that II Is possible
to use wealth or influence to more effect
in a nominating convention than in a
state legislature. The delegates are
chosen for that occasion only. After a
few hours work they go home, and re-
sponsibllity ends. II corruption were en-
pleyed. 1t would find this more favor
able opportunity than a legislative ses-
sion. where men are under the public
eye for months. ana must make a return
TO their constituencies.
Laying all argument OF the desirable
lily Of the change aside. we come to the
conclusive fact that when the people of
any state desire TO send a certain man
to the senate. they can do so without
any constitutional amendment what
ever And that Is just what they are
doing now. II may surprise some OF
our readers TO know that there are for
ty-two members OF the United States
senate today. representing twenty zone
states, whose election was popular as
truly as II they hid been balloted for
at the general election. Every voter In
their states knew, when he cast bal
lot for member OF the legislature. for
whom that member would vote, IL elect
ed. for United States senator. In most
instances the legislature was bound
firmly by instructions from the state
conventions of the respective parties.
This method is open to every state in
the Union IL the people really desire
| direct participation in senatorial cleo
tons. they can have 1t without any
! amendment to the constitution Let
them, in choosing delegates to their
state conventions, make the ssnatorship