The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-01-27
CHoosiNe SENATORS.

1 CmOOtkNG sENATORS.
 The resultNof the oregon Senatorial contest has given nek impetus to the sentiment in favor of selecting sena- tors through . primary election. While it may be true that such c primary could not of itself bind the Lesisla- turs, which must elect Senators as provided by the Constitution of the URitea States. it is also true that when candidates for the Legislature pledge thefnselves to obey the result of the primary. they cannot free them selves from their obligation without moral treachery and plain violation of their pledges.
 This was the situation in Oregon. The primary election chose Mir. Cham- beriain, a Democrat. for Senator. Then, some ewhat inconsisteAtly the people chose a Republican majority in both houses of the Legislature. Naturally, If there had been ID primary. the Leg islature would have elected a Repub- lican Senator. -POssibiS, alsO, if the members had net voluntarily pledged themselves to carry out the result of the primary they might have dIsre- Earded it and elected. a Republican anyhow. for there is nothinE in the Constitution or the laws te have pre- vented them from doing so. That they stood by their pledges and elected Chamberlain is c credit to them, for it was seriously proposed that they ignore the choice of the people and elect . man of their own choice. They stood by their word and honOred themselves. as we'll as their State. by so doing.
 The result of this peculiar case, as we have stated, has been to strength en the primary system of choosing Senators, at least in. some quarters. Its advocates say that if a Republican Legislature obeys the expressed wishes of Democratic majority at the polls, the system must be . good one. Such arguments may be plausible. but are not convincing to those of us who stiIl believe in the old way. The object had in view by the framers of our Federal Constitution are plain enough. They intended that the people should elect the representatives who would thus be the direct representatives of the people. It is equally plain that they intended that Sena tors should rep- resent the States in their organized capacity and therefore the States, by their Legislatures, should choose their Senators without even consulting the people, fer that matter. Thus We would have representatives of the sovereign States and representatives of the sovereign people in the same COnGFess.
 Let us look at the Wisconsin case which ia now on. and which shows one of the aissdvants Ees of the primary plan. Senator Isaac Stephenson is NNW VuA &H uHFAplTNu TGfnl which expires on March {. He was a candidate in the recent primary for the Republican nomination for election to tue full term and was successful. The Republicans elected a large ma. JOrity of the members of the I.eRis. lature in both branches and should a nna Pa at
 publican who Ia the choice of the peo- pie. but it is not at all certain that they will do so. Charges have been filed against him under the corrupt practices law. charging that he cor ruPted the ballot by the free use of money ib the primaries. He Is a very rich man and 1t is openly claimed that he spent at least half 8 million dollars to secure q ma ajOrity in the primary, and he may be defeated On this charge.
 Now. why might not the same cor rupt practice be resorted to in any other state? There are rich men who would like to be Senators. and some of whom. at least. would not hesitate to buy the ohiee in s primary, if they could do so. What ls charged with hay ing been done in Wisconsin might be done in another State. and certainly this is a sound argument against any departure from the old way.
 And there is &Asthsr Argamsat that