The citizen. [volume] (Berea, Ky.) 1899-1958, 1910-01-20

will be found OF avoiding this misfor-
tune.
Aside from this. however, the
debate was excellent, the men show
ed every sign OF hard and careful pre-
paration, and wide study. Some Of
them still had marks of immaturity
on them. which will disappear with
longer training. and there is more
than promise that they will develop
into splendid debators.
Following is the line of argument
taken by Phi Delta:
The negative admitted at once that
there are evils in the presnt method
Of electing United States Senators,
and that there Is a popular demand
for direct popular election, but they
opposed popular election by maintain
ing. First. that the Senate has ac-
complished the purpose for which It
was founded. as proven by our own
history. by authority. and by imita-
ton In foreign countries.
Second, that popular election would
have an undesirable effect upon the
Senate. as political Institution, IN
that Il would introduce far more seri-
Gus evils than exist under the pres
ent method OF election. IL would
increase the number of contested el-
ections. Il would destroy the conser-
vatism OF the Senate. Il would remove
the distinction between the Senate
and the House, and multiply the mis-
takes and corruption OF a single legis-
lative body.
Third, the negative maintained In
the second speech. that popular cleo
ton would not improve the character
OF the senators, because the Senate
today contains able and experienced
men, the most perfect product OF our
politics, whose character cannot be
elevated by any mechanical device
such as popular election.
Fourth, that popular election would
not even remedy the evils now exist
ing. Deadlocks, which have been few
anG far between, would give place
to the scandal OF contested elections.
Bribery and corruption would not be
eliminated, for you cannot evade this
issue by the form of the election.
Fifth, that the change involved In
the constitutional amendment. alters
the framework, and threatens the
very foundation OF our constitution.
and opens tho way into unknown and
untried fields where none but the 80
cialist dare to tread.
Sixth, they maintained in the third
speech, that placing the election un-
der federal control is itself a suffi-
cient reason for rejecting the amend
ment. They claimed that the election
OF senators and representatives is now
primarily under state control. The
constitution says, 1.-THE time. place
and manner of electing senator's and
representatives shall be prescribed
by the legislatures of the several
states, but Congress may by law make
or alter such regulations" The neg
alive said that since the election OF
senators and representatives is pri-
marily under state control, and Is only
under federal control when Congress-
lnterferes, and since Congress is M
present not interfering with the cleo
ton, then we must conclude that we
now have no federal control. There IL
now no federal election law. HAYNES |
In his book on Popular Election"
says, Federal control of elections has
been temporarily abandoned" The
provision in this question, which the
affirmative uphold. premises that Con-
gress would again exercise this fed
arai control, which has been tempor-
irily abandoned.
The negative said in conclusion of
The argument which they presented
against federal control, 1--WE have CIV
an a fair and impartial definition OF
The term federal control" a defin-
Ition which has always been given
when under discussion In Congress.
We have shown the strife II has cans-
ID when exercised, and the danger of
I by having no limitation; that the
strongest advocates of popular cleo
Ion are strictly opposed to Il I'M