Omaha daily bee., 1906-02-18
POPULAR VOTES OF PREFERENCE IN
NEBRASKA.

TUBULAR bOIBN OF PhhFEhbNCb IN
.''' NEBRASKA.
An article by DR.. George S. Haynes
on Popular Control of Senatorial Elec-
tons" in the December Political Science
Quarterly refers particularly to Ne
braska's experience, but DR.. Haynes has
apparently been misled by unreliable
sources of information when he says:
In twenty-five years and more since 1t
(the vote of preference) became a part of
the constitution they 0he people, have
made use Of 1t but once, and then with
results that are significant. In 1886 Cen
eral Van Wyck made an active canvass
of the state in his own behalf as an anti
monopolist. Neither the republican nor
the democratic party put forward a sem
atorial candidate in the popular election
in November at which. although 1876, 209
votes were cast for governor, only 50,44S
voters expressed preference for senator;
of these more than 81 per cent voted for
Van Wyck. When the legislature met he
led the first two ballots, receiving forty
votes out of 100; but he failed to secure
election, a result which he attributed to
the interference of railroad officials and
monopolists.
The operation of the constitutional
provision referred to does not warrant
these assertions. This clause in our
constitution is not self-acting and the
necessary enabling legislation was not
passed until the session of 1879, so that
the first opportunity to try it did not
come until 1880, when few scattering
votes of preference for United States
senators were returned, although at the
election of 1882 no expressions of prefer
ence are recorded.
For the election of 1886. however, the
third preceding the expiration Of the
term of a United States senator" after
the law became operative, it was in
voked by Senator Van Wyck, then serv-
ing as a republican and seeking re-elec-
ton. The total number of ballots cast
was 13S,711 the total number for United
States senator, 5OO64; the number re-
corded for Van Wyck, 46,110; the num-
Der recorded for the next highest candi-
date Paddock, 1926. But the popular
The contest was transferred to the legis-
lature, where, although Van Wyck re-
ceived the votes of a majority of the
members on different ballots, they were
so juggled that he failed TO receive a
majority on any one ballot, and Pad
dock was finally elected Naturally the
| peoples faith in their constitutional
privilege to instruct their representa-
tives was shaken when they saw a can
didate for whom only 1926 had voted
succeed over one for whom 46110 had
voted
In 1888 few votes OF preference fol-
senator were canvassed, the highes
polled for any one candidate being 4. 12s
out Of n total vote approximating 100,
600 but in this instance the reelection
OF the sitting senator was universally
conceded.
In 1892 no votes of senatorial prefer
ence were tabulated; yet the records OF
this county Douglas) show that vote,
were cast for senator. although appar
emily never canvassed by the stat,
board.
In 1894 another appeal to popula
choice was made and for the first tim
under the party name William ]
Bryan was formally nominated 70
United States senator by the democrat
and c. f. Bentley by the prohibition
party The total vote was 21O.547. on
of which Bryan received SO.472 an,
Bentley 25,594. John NJ. Thurston, VIII
was elected by the republicans. VIII
controlled the legislature, received onl
1896 votes of preference.
In 1893 but a scattering vote for ser
ator was registered. Senator w. '
Allen, who was the active candidate q
the fusion democrats and popullsts 70
reelection, was convinced that n part
nomination would be source of veal
ness instead OF strength. in the light q
what had befallen Van WICK an
Bryan. and the republicans had sue
small hopes Of winning that no SEM
torinl candidates came out of cove
p. The senatorship fell TO VI. l.. Haywar,
|. who had been the unsuccessful repul
e lican candidate for governor.
q In 1900 no senatorial nomination
! We're made, but the name OF Edwar