Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1908-03-19
ELECTION OF u. S. SENATOR'S.

THE last state to show the necessity
for the election of senators by direct
vote of the people is Kentucky and we
have scarcely had a more striking ex-
ample of the ~embezzlement of power
thar kentucky has presented. -Four
members of the legislature who.were
elected as democrats, and by their cleo
ton pledged to vote for a democratic
candidate, have voted for the republican
candidate. They did it, too, under
circumstances which take away every
possible excuse that they had or can
offer. At first they excused themselves
for not voting for Governor Beckham on
the ground of opposition to him person
ally. This excuse was not a valid one
because be was nominated at a primary,
and they were elected after his nomina-
ton and when their constituents had a
right to expect them to vote for him
But even this subterfuge was taken
away when Governor Beckham appeared
upon the floor and withdrew his name,
and left the democrats to select a demo-
cratic candidate by caucus. The four
democrats, however, refused to change
their votes even when the reasons for
objection had beer removed. They
simply preferred to elect a republican
rather than elect any democrat, for they
could not assume in advance that no
acceptable democrat could be found. 1t
is not necessary to inquire what things
led them out of the democratic party
and into the republican ranks. 1t is
enough to know that they are embezzlers
of power, and that as such they have
.sinned as grievously as one can sin by
the embezzlement of money. AS in
dividuals they had a right to change
their opinion. but as the representatives
of constituents, they had no right to
their own private use. A public Office
is a public trust and representatives of
the people have no more right to make a
private use of the authority conferred
upon them than a person has to convert
to his own use money left him in trust.
For those who are responsible for Cover
nor Bradley's election no satisfactory
explanation can be given, and if Cover
MOI Bradley was as devoted as he ought
to be to the principles of representative
government, he would not accept an
Office secured by the betrayal of a trust.
What would we think of a candidate for
the presidency who would accept the
position if it was secured by a betrayal
of duty on the part of electors? Elec-
tors are voted for because they are
pledged to the candidate who heads
their ticket and no language could de
scribe too harshly the sin of an elector
VINO would desert his party after an
election and vote with the opposition.
and the public would have contempt for
a presidential candidate who would
accept the position under such circum-
stances. Wherein do the members of
the legislature differ from electors?
They we're instructed at a primary and
were elected with the supposition that
they would carry out the will of the
party expressed at the primary. Even
if they could have claimed that their
democratic constituents preferred an
other democratic candidate, they could
not assume that the democrats who
elected them would have preferred a
republican senator. The Kentucky
incident ought to strengthen the senti
menu in favor of the election of senators
by popular vote. Let the democrats in
congress push this measure and put the
republicans upon record if they refuse
to adopt so necessary and popular a
reform.