OCR Text |
Show AN UNPRACTICAL STRIFE. It is not easy to appreuinto at .tho importance attached to it by them, tho position of .thofco Senators who insist on retaining, in the resolution for the popular election of Senators, Ihe c.oit-trol c.oit-trol of Congress over that election. Tho pretense is that it is neoossary to retain this control in order to vindicate vindi-cate the fifteenth amendment, and enforce en-force the right of tho negroes of the South to vote. But. as Ihe negroes in the South are not now allowed al-lowed (o vote, and as Congress has the undoubted right to control the elections for Representatives in Congress and fails to do so, it is hard to see why this sticking 'point should be raised as to I he election (if U. S. .Senators. If there wore any real purpose on the part of Congress to control the election elec-tion of Senators or Representatives, .there would be some point to the insistence in-sistence of retaining the right 'of control con-trol in the matter of Senatorial elections. elec-tions. But, as Congress has practically given up all idea of supervising the olcclions of Representatives in order to enforce the right of the negro lo vote, and as there is no effort making anywhere to enforce that right, the insistence in-sistence upon retaining it as lo tho election elec-tion of Senators is clearly a political dodge meant, to defeat the movo for the election of Senators by tho people. J I is a clear case that if Congress wishes to enforce the fifteenth amendment amend-ment in any sort of an election over which il has control, it ought to enforce en-force it now in the election of Representatives Repre-sentatives to Congress. When this National supervision over election of Representatives to Congress was in effect, the Southern States made an immense im-mense uproar about it. But the enforcement en-forcement of National control in Representative Repre-sentative elections did not restore the voting privilege to the negroes. The Southern whites wore determined that the negro should not vote, and Ihey have kept t hem from voting most of the time, since the fifteenth amendment amend-ment was adopted, that nominally conferred con-ferred upon tho ncgroos the voting franchise. But (he negroes are not able to exercise that franchise in the face of fho white opposition. Many years ago (ho so-called "force bill," which gave tho -Federal authorities the supervision of the elections for Representatives Repre-sentatives lo Congress, was repealed. That showed a rather waning interest on tho part of the pcoplo of the North in the enforcement of the fifteenth amendment in tho Southern States. lSvcr sinco that time the interest in this question has diminished, until how there is - practically no sentiment senti-ment anywhoic in the Nation demanding demand-ing the enforcement of tho fifteenth amendment as against the local legislation legis-lation and the local sentiment which the whites have, 'built up-io .prevent, the negroes voting. But. sinco Congress has abandoned tho supervision of elections for Representatives Repre-sentatives lo Congress, why should it insist -upon retaining a barren right in tho matter of the election of Senators? It is not-in tho least likely that the Senators who voto to retain this right of control, insisting upon putting it in the constitutional amendment which would allow of the oleclion of Senators by popular vote, would favor the pas sago of a. law assuming the control of Senatorial cloctious in case their amendment prevailed and was ratified by a sufficient number of States to put it in the constitution, ff they would, if they think that sort, of super vision right and nooded. why have they not for years past .been insistent in urging tho control of tho election of Representatives to Congress by the Federal authorityl Sinco fhoy do not insist upon this, why should thoy insist upon injecting in this proposed amond ment the contentious idea-that thoy in sist upon injecting, and that fhoy show no disposition lo use where they now have tho power. But thero is good reason for saying that although tho right lo control Uie elections for Representatives in Con-gross Con-gross is properly !n tho hands of Congress, Con-gress, that tho election of Senators from tho States by no means belongs in tho samo class. Tho Senators sent by fho Stales lo form tho Upper JTouso in Cougrcss roprcsont tho States. Logically Logi-cally it is tho right of tho- States to send those Senators in any way that they choose. Tho provisions in the constitution as it is, -establish the supervisory power of Congress, but this is illogical from tho general standpoint of tho constitution. On tho genoral principles involved, it would seem that the States should havo had fho right io select their Scnalqrs in any way that they chose, either ny popular voto, by Legislative choice, or by a gubernatorial guberna-torial appointment. Wo aro aware, of course, that in tho constitution as it is tho supervision of Congress over this matter is granted and ifi ample. We speak, however, as to tho logic of tho situation originally. And this brings us to tho point that, from another view, tho attempt to inject in-ject this supervisory power of Congress Con-gress anew into tho proposed amend ment is dishonest aud hostilo; for, if it wero tho purposo genuinely and simply to allow the States fo choose their Senators by popular voto in place of by legislative election,, that could bo oxpressod in tho resolution proposing propos-ing the amendment, leaving tho constitution, consti-tution, otherwise precisely as it is. But thore seems to bo a fatality about this matter that is working against tho popular choice of Senators. Those who bring forward tho amendment to the constitution permitting the choice by popular vole, complicato.it with, tho touchy question of Congressional control, con-trol, a question that does not need to bo raised at all in this effort, and that, whon raised always makes delay de-lay and bitterness. It Jb hard to comprehend com-prehend the advorse rut into which this matter is constantly forced, otherwise than by the conclusion thai, neither those who advocate fho amendment nor those who seek to defeat it by the Sutherland injection genuinely favors fa-vors the choico of Senators by tho people. If those people who propose this amendment, actually meaning to favor it, should do so simply as to Iho changii of method of electing Senators, leaving everything else out. and leaving leav-ing the constitution otherwise exactly as it is on this question, (here would be no reason for the Sutherland amendment. amend-ment. And, on tho other hand, the Sutherland amendment, is dishonest in being offered and insiulud upon simply as an obstructive measure, and not because be-cause of any principle involved, for if there wore a principle involved in i(. Ihoso who favor l his amendment would at once move (o lako over the control of the Representative elections and insist that the ncgroos should vote at these elections. The fact that this is not clone establishes the proposition that those who favor this injection have no intent whatever to apply the remedy which nominally they demand. It appears to be a game of double dealing deal-ing and duplicity throughout, quij.c unworthy un-worthy of men who hold tho high station sta-tion of membership in the Congress of tho United States. |