The Washington times., 1913-02-22
DIRECT ELECTIONS
NEAR IN MARYLAND
First Application of New Law
Probably Will Be Made in
That State Soon.
By JOHN SNURE.

By JOHN SNURE.
Ratification of the proposed amend
ment to the Constitution for the direct
election of Senators is proceeding al
such a rapid rate that ii is now believed
the amendment will be adopted in the
course of this spring and before the
legislatures now in session have ad-
: journed.
This means that the Senatorial con-
test now beginning in Maryland will
probably be settled by direct election.
instead of election by the legislature.
Maryland may be the first State TO
select a member of the upper house by
direct method and, in any event, much
O fthe political wire-pulling now going
on there is likely TO come to nothing
because of the direct election provision,
y. Will Eliminate Corruption.
II the ratification of the amendment
proceeds as rapidly as now expected,
the successors to the thirty-two Sen
ators whose terms of service expire
March 8. 1915. will be chosen by direct
elections and the old system. with its
corrupting and deadlocking of legis-
latures, will be thing of the past
Twenty-three State legislatures have
already ratified the direct elections
amendment. Ratifications by three
fourths of the States, or thirty-six, is
necessary. The amendment has been
ratified by one house of twelve legis-
latures additional to the twenty-three.
n the legislatures which have passed
the amendment through one house pro-
coed to complete ratification. this will
make the number that have ratified the
measure thirty-five. or within one of the
total necessary to make direct elec-
ti0a Of Senators a part of the Consti-
tuition. Moreover, forty-two legislatures
are In session this winter and spring
Out of this number, the probabilities
are. in the opinion of friends Of the
amendment who have been keeping
close watch of it. that thirty-six Will
indorse It.
January May See 1t Pass.
The Georgia legislature will meet in
June and several legislatures will NEE,
the coming winter. Therefore, even II
the amendment fails by a narrow mar
gin this spring, 1t will doubtless be
made a part of the Constitution next
January.
rapldity with which the legislatures
have ratified the direct elections amend
ment. The income tax amendment
dragged along about four years. This
VIII not be the case with direct elec-
tions. The demand for it is keen, the
opposition to II less formidable than
the opposition to the income tax amend
ment. Be sides, there is something to be
said for the idea that the country is de-
termined on the amendment of the Con.
stttution and the more practice it gets
In amending Il the more celerity Is be.
ing developed in doing it.
The process Of ratilcafion of the di.
rect elections amendment Is not al
smooth sailing. Machine politicians ir
some of the States. seeing how quickly
It is being endorsed. are trying to block
It. They have probably begun too late
even seriously to delay 1t.
Held Up In One House.
Among the legislatures where the
amendment is held up on one house
after having passed the other house
are those of Pennsylvania, Missouri,
Oklahoma, New Mexico, New Jersey
and Delaware. In this connection
there is some highly interesting po.
Etical gossip. 1t appears that Senator
Penrose does not want the amendment
ratified before he runs for the Senate
again in Pennsylvania, and his friends
are trying to block it Senator Stone
OF Missouri. is not eager to have 1t ap.
piled to him, and his friends are re.
puted to be busy trying to proven,
inal action in the Missouri Legislature
In Oklahoma, Senator Cores situation
would not be improved by a direc;
election amendment because he has {
large number OF the hcldover Senators
However, Senator Gore is a strong
progressive Democrat, and II Is un
likely he would take any steps to de-
lay the amendment, no matter how
IL might affect him.
The probabilities are that the amend
ment will be forced through In the
States mentioned. in spite Of any efforts
10 hold ii back Woodrow Wilson is eX
pected to get Il through IN New jersey
The Senators whose terms end carl!
in 1915, campaigns for the choice o!
successors to whom will be made either
the coming summer or a year from nexi
summer, are:
Bradley of Kentucky, Brandegec oI
Connecticut, Bristow Of Kansas, Burtor
of Ohio. Chamberlain OF Oregon, Clarke
of Arkansas, Crawford of South Da
kota- Cummins OF Iowa, Dillingham; of
Vermont, Fletcher of Florida. Gallingel
OF New Hampshire. Gore of Oklahoma
Gronna OF North DAKOTA, johnston ol
Alabama. Jones Of Washington. New
lands of Nevada, Overman Of North
Carolina Penrose of Pennsylvania
Perkins OF California. Brady of Idaho
Root of New York. Shively OF Indiana
Smith of South Carolina, Smith OF
Georgia, Smith OF Maryland, Smith o.
Arizona, Smoot of Utah, Stephenson o.
Wisconsin, Stone of Missouri, ant
Thornton Of Louisiana. While Thorn
tons term ends in 1915, however. his
successor has already been chosen
Congressman Broussard having beer
elected
r. Doubtless the Successors to the 1911
class of Senators will he chosen by tht
direct elections method.
When the Bristow amendment to tht
direct elections amendment was adopt
ed II was widely predicted II woulc
block ratification. This prediction sp
parentIy will not come true. While
there is opposition in many Scutherr
States to the Bristow amendment, foi
Federal control of Senatorial elections
or. rather. ascertaining that right. th'
fact Texas, Arkansas. and North Caro-
lima have ratified the direct elections
measure shows il is not controlling
objection. even in the South.