New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1911-03-22
Faithful, to the last.

Bit. They stuck and voted the same
- they alwsys have. Some. Of them
switched, TO be sure, but not. enough
TO pass the resolution. So % far %
sctlcal results arc concerned It is
= b the same % II none Of them had
switched. All Of which comes right
back to the first statement that you've
lust got to give it to the senate whom
it comes to sticking.
AS to why they stuck, that goes to
the other view Of the matter. Firt re-
memberiug that the demand for pop
ular election of senator's has grown
intensely in the last few years and yet
more in the last six months, and thst
the movement was given unqualified
Endorsement in the last national Dem
ocr,tic platform, and has been In
dorsed by Republican conventions IN
several states and by legislatures In
others, it is interesting to look over
the list of senator's who voted against
it.
First there is Bacon of Georgia, q
Democrat; Bsnkhead Of Alabama,
another Democrat: Brandegee and
Buckley, both New England Re-
publicans from Connecticut; Burrows
of Michigan, who displayed himself
in behalf OF Lorimer; Crane of Mas
sschusetts, who went scouting for the
president when that officer was seek
ing sentiment to bolster up the Payne
law; Depew-every body knows about
Depew; Dick of Ohio-every body
knows about Dick, too; Dillingham;
takes us back TO New England Re-
publicanism, as shown in the Green
Mountain state; Fletcher of Florida
shows another instance of disregard
for party platform declarations, since
he is a Democrat; Flint comes from
California, where they raise Ruefs
for the state supreme court to protect;
Forster of Louisiana is another re-
creant Democrat. Gallinger of New
Hamphire is the ship subsidy angel;
Hale of Malne-no need to tell who
or what he is; Johnston of Alabama is
another Democrat who forgot; Kean
of New Jersey evidently is social
light with too little time to know
what the people want; Lodge-save
the ma,k!-Lodge who proclaimed
himself progressive when Governor
Foss had him scared, but who got
over it completely as soon as he was
reelected; Lorimer-see it? Lorimer,
William Lorimer of Illinois-Lorimer
voted againsv direct election too, pos
sibly on the theory that it would cost
so doggone much to buy up the
whole state; Money, fernando De
Soto Money of Mississippi, another
forgetful Democrat; Oliver of Pen
sylvania- then, Oliver comes
from Pittsburg; Page, the other Yer
mont specimen; Penrose, nobody
needs an Introduction to Penrose;
Percy (see Money; and that's no joke,
either); Richardson of Delaware
know ANYTHING about him? Root of
New York, you know Elihu: Scott,
sure, of West Virginia; 'Smoot yes,
of Utah, he's the same old Reed;
Taliaferro, Florida, and Tillmap,
"Pitchfork Ben" of South Carolina,
absent. Demo Gratis; Warren of
Wyoming-certainly; and Wetmore
of Aldrich- beg pardon, Wetmore of
Rhode Island.
Count them-thirty-three. Nice lot,
yes? And don't let anybody try to
tell you that the Sutherland amend
a6ent was what did it, for the only
real kick on the Sutherland amend
'ment came from the South, and only
eight Southern Democrats voted
against popular election of senator's
while nineteen voted for it.
You see, there's no way around it.
You've just got to give it to that
senate, any way you put it. 1t is the
finest hardest, thickest headed ag-
gregation of standpat conserv atism
that ever was showed onto any nation
in history. 1t does not give q con-
tinental what the people want. In
less the next senate acts differently it
may be necessary to<ake up the sena-
torial election matter by direct action
by the states. Maybe that would be
better anyway, for then we could soak
those senator's good and plenty, and
get back at them for few old scores.
Robbing the Indians.