Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-06-05
WON BY THE NEGATIVE
-
George Washington University
Students Engage in Debate.
ELECTION OF j. S. SENATORS
Question Affirmed That Choice Should
Be by Direct Vote.
ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENTS
Representative Dawson Serves as
Chairman and Members of Dis
trict Supreme Court as Judges.
ELECTION OF j. S. SENATORS
ABSTRACT OF THE ARGUMENTS

Fair field and no favor" was the rule
last evening when the annual forensic bat
tie was fought before a large audience and
prominent judges by the representatives of
the Needham and Columbian Debating So
cieties Of George Washington University in
the University Hall. At the close of most
spirited contest the judges gave a decision
In favor Of the negative debaters. Repre-
sentative A. f. Dawson of Iowa, who pre-
sided. explained that three debates between
the two societies are held each scholastic
year, and from the six men who partlci-
pated In each discussion two honor men are
selected. The six thus named take part In
the annual prize debate
Inc question under discussion affirmed
that United States senators should be
eiected by direct vote of the people" 1t
was announced by the chairman, with the
agreed qualification. that mere difficulty In
obtaining constitutional amendment was
not to be urged.
Mr.. Dawson also explained that the debate
was rather an individual than team con-
Test as three prizes, consisting of gold.
silver and bronze medals were to he
awarded to the best debaters In order Of
merit, the criterion Of Judgment being, first,
argument. second. clearness and orderly
presentation: third. delivery
NJ. w. Patterson. c. A. Miller and John
I. Kennedy upheld the affirmative of the
issue f. j. Lundy Adam Beefer and A. L.
Newmyer the negative.
The Arguments.
Mr. Patterson for the affirmative dis
cussed the history of the present law and
cited James Madison's opinion in the
premises. He argued that election by the
legislatures means Capitalization: It means
deterioration In the national and In the
state legislature; that 1t is fruitful source
OF corruption; that it removes the naming
of senators from the source of all American
power-the people The danger too OF an
essentially capitalistic upper house is seri-
Gus. The chaplain each day looks over the
heads OF the senators and prays for the
people. States are deprived of representa-
ton at times because handful of men
cannot agree on senator. Twenty-nine
states have petitloned for a change and
many states now by primaries and conven-
lions elect senators directly.
Mr. Lundy for the negative also invoked
the history of the constitutional convention
that was responsible for our fundamental
law. To change the election of senator's
he said Is to change the attributes and
representative character of the senator's
To destroy the foundation of system is to
destroy the system, according to the
speaker. The people of New York with
100000 voters would not submit long to
having the same representation in the SEN
ate Nevada with 5000 voters, IL the SEN
ators were elected by direct vote The
change would mean simply ain additional
and smaller House of Representatives. The
vital principle of the Senate organization
in the minds of the fathers was conserva-
tism. Make its members directly response
BILE to the people rather than TO the state
and the sometimes violent clamor of the
people will prevail at all times.
Mr.. Miller of Missouri for the affirma-
tive insisted that 1t Is wiser that 5000 men
in Nevada should elect two United States
senators than that twenty-five members of
a legislature should elect them. Con-
ditions when the Constitution was framed
were explained; 1t was the day of states
rights; today multi milionaires, wealthy
corporations, five or six hundred industrial
and railway trusts exist. These control
legislatures and hence senators. To con-
troll fifty-one men Che average majority
in all the state legislatures is to control