The San Francisco call., 1907-06-16

senatorial deadlock on It gets all the
attention: other business is quite IN
cidental. On an average, state oy state.
II probably costs $4,000 day TO keep
a legislature in session; that Is, every
day of the contest has cost years
salary OF the senator who was not be-
ing elected. It is safe to say that the
states pay q good deal more money for
the election Of theiv senator's than the
United States afterward pays the sena-
tors in salaries-probably several times
as much
There Is. OF course. insistence In many
quarters that the popular election OF
senators would remedy all this. Perhaps
it would. but it Is further away than
ever before. That is the cold fact
Why, It may be asked. has there not
been a determined. nation wide move
ment to bring about popular elections?
Are not most people in favor OF the
change?
Probably all this IS true. but In re-
cent years there has been experience
with something that approximates
closely to popular election Of senator's
This is the nomination OF senatorial
candidates In the southern states by
direct popular vote In a state wide prt-
mary. The south being Overwhelmingly
democratic. the only real contests are
in the democratic primaries. So the
senators come nearer to representing
sn expression of popular wish than they
possibly could under another system.
Under this system of popular nominal
tion by direct vote the south has sent
to the senate such men as Clark and
Jefferson Davis OF Arkansas and has
retired such men as James n Jones and
General Berry. 1t has elected Beekman
and Payner in Kentucky over Blackburn
and McCrary. IL has sent up Overman
from Georgia and others OF like char
acter. Now. these men may be good
senator's but they have not impressed
the senate favorably. That IS the cold.
uncomfortable truth. The elder states
men say that the popular" senator Is
so eternally busy looking after his pop
ularity-keeping I'm touch with his peo-
ple-that he has no time for the bust
ness of legislation They do not like
the results OF popular election. so far
az they have studied them IN these
instances.
There is no very deep seated antax-
onism to popular election IN the senate
aside from this view. The notion that
senators oppose popular elections be-
cause they are fearful of losing their
own skins IL mainly buncombe. The
senator who Is already in would on the
average have a better chance In an cleo
tion than before legislature because
he would have the advantage Of pres
tige and acquaintance 1t Is not SO
much selhshness as an honest belief
that the plan would not give the senate
the best OF men that keeps the senate
from adopting the popular amendment
resolutions.
The argument may not be very log
ical, but Il serves the purpose OF the
senator's. An analysis OF the senats's
membership recently Indicated that
about one-third were utter accidsnts
and another third either rich men or
accepted representatives OF wealth.
But Of the "accidents' q number ware
rated as most useful and effective soma
tors, while OF the wealthy men ths
worst that could be said In half thu
cases or more was that they were
wealthy. Under either rule, IN short
OF Legislative or OF popular election,
there will come good msn and poor
ones The worst thing about lsxisla-
tive election is it's demoralizing in
fiuencs on the legislatures. The stats
all too often gets nothing out OF n
long and expensive session OF its Is<ts-
lature. simply because the senatorial
deadlock prevents the body making 1T
self useful