Mexico Missouri message., 1901-08-01
CHOOSING OF e
~ u. $. SENATOR'S.
BY CLAUDE MORRIS.

Within the last four years differ
ent political parties have declared
in favor of their election by the
people; State legislatures have
passed resolutions advising that
the matter he submitted for amend
ment, and the House of Reprcsen-
tativcs officially advised their more
scdatc brethren to throw off the
old monarchy tainted method of
election by the legislatures and
take their chances with the people,
the real source of their authority.
In casting about for the reason of
this agitation and dissatisfaction
with our present method we tiud
that it springs from the prevailing
conviction that choosing Senators
is il function which belongs of
right to the people generally and
not to any select body of them,
and that the abuses and evils at
tending the present system would
be very materially lcssencd 10y the
people rcclaiming this right which
they delegated to the State lcgis-
laturcs hy the Constitution.
An amendment to the tOnstitu-
tion giving back to the people this
right will render the manner of
choosing our Senators more in
harmony with our democratic the
ory of government; il will remedy
II material defect in the existing
laws governing their selection, and
insure to every State her full rep
rcscntation in the Senate at all
times; it will greatly reduce the
possibilities of corruption, and re-
lievc the State legislatures of Il
fruitful source of diSScnSiOmS
which engages them and consumes
their time at the expense of State
affairs. Dcadlocks will exist only
in memory as political nightmares;
our senators would be chosen at
the general elections and this eX-
ira political commotion avoided.
All these laudable objects would
be obtained and at the same time
we would have senators who would
meet with equal or greater fidelity
and ability those duties which our
country has intrustcd to them.
Naturally the inquiry comes forth,
if there is better plan why did IT
not suggest itself to the fathers
who, in framing the Constitution,
proved themselves such consum-
mate statesmen! Two reasons
are given in answer to this. They
were raised under Il monarchy and
We're not yet disposed to east the
government wholly into the hands
of the people, and experience had
not shown to them as it has to us
the abuses that may be practicCd
under the present system.
In reading the debates of our
Constitutional Convention the inn
preston is more aud more forced
upon the mind that many of those
famous old patriots, grand and
noble as they were, and i'll spite of
what they had suffered at the
hands of such Il government, bore
still the taintS of monarchy and
had not yet learned to fully trust
the people. These, by their num-
hcrs and ability as well as by their
undoubtcd patriotism, We're cnabl-
ed to impress their ideas upon the
proceedings of that Convention
Who will be SO unjust as TO con
dcmn them If the scroll of his.
tory could have unfolded to their
view, rs it has To ours, the hcnc-
iicicnce of our government, then
they would have been just objects
of rcproach. The possibilities of
what they were to accomplish may
have flashed across the minds of
some, but it was only theory.
There was not n Republic in exist
cnce to inspire their admiration
for the form, and there was the
mother country, IL monarchy, and
beyond question II government SUI
pcrior to any other then in exist
ence. How could we expect them
to dismiss at once the theories of
lifetime! Not Il decade before the
breaking ont of the Revolutionary
war they had been the proud and
loyal subjects of the British Mon
arch. Many of them had stood
with the British troops in the
French and Indian wars. The i'm,
mortal Washington was with Gen