OCR Text |
Show SENATORS BY POPITLAR VOTE. There must be an olomont of hypocrisy in the advocacy of the election elec-tion of U. S. Senators by popular vote, on the part of those who insist upon coupling with the constitutional amendment amend-ment for such election the throwing off of all Congressional control of tho election of Senators. As tho Constitution Constitu-tion is now, Congress has control within with-in fair limits of the election of both Senators and Representatives in Congress, Con-gress, this for the purpose of assuring tho purity of elections and the independent inde-pendent action of the voters when they voto upon the selection of members of Congroess. Now, there would scorn to be no necessary relation whatover between tho proposition to allow tho Sonatorg to bo elected by populnr vot and the taking away from Congress I of all BuporviHion over the election' of Senators. If it; were a straightforward, honest proposition for tho election of Senators by popular voto in place of by the legislature, then that change could be made -without in any 'way disturbing tho other provisions of the Constitution Constitu-tion which invest Congress with the power to Buporvise the election of the Senators. Ab it is, if tho opinion of the Honso of Representatives should prevail, we would see the anomaly of the retention by Congress of supervision supervis-ion and control over the election of the membership of the House of Representatives, Repre-sentatives, arid no possible control or supervision over the. election of United States. Senators. So far from the Constitution being relaxed in this respect when tho change is made from election by the legislature to election by popular voto, precisely the reverse would be the logical expectation and the necessary rule. Heretofore, the Senators havo bpen elected by the legislatures under rules laid down by CongTcss, the law fixing the time at which the legislature shall begin its ballots for Senators, and requiring that at least one vote a day shall be had until a Senator is elected or until the session ends. Thoro has been, so far a3 the discussion of this question before tho people i3 concerned, con-cerned, no proposition to take away the supervision of Congress ovor the Senatorial elections. The campaign lias been directed simply to the point of changing the oleotorato from the legislature to tho people. Why- this should be complicated with the question ques-tion of jurisdiction over tho elections and the iusistenco made that the supervision super-vision of Congress shall bo taken awaj-, wo havo not been able to understand; nor does there seem to bo any force in tho proposition that Congress would, in caso tho control of Congress is continued con-tinued over the election of Senators, interfere by militao' power in one section of the country or another in these cloctions, any more than that it would so interfere in the elections of Representatives. If it worn a candid, honest proposition, the control would remain in Congress .just as it docs now, and the people would elect the Senator in place of the legislature electing him. The proposition to do away with tho supervision of Concress over these elections seems to us to be simply a dodge whereby those who really are opposing tho olection of Senators Sen-ators by the people enn defeat it without with-out making themselves unpopular among their constituents by interposing interpos-ing ffuch an obstacle as will prevent the peoplo electing their Senator?. Thus fnr. tho question has hinged chiefly on party lines, tho Democratic House insisting on the doing away with the supervision of Cougress, and the Republican Senate insisting on retaining retain-ing it. But. as we said before, the Constitution .as it is Bhould not in any way bo interfered with in a discussion of this question, nor do the merits of the proposition to elect Senators by oopular vote come in conflict in any way with the present provisions of the Constitution which provide the supervision super-vision of Congress over the election .of SMiniorp nnd Representatives. Tho question has been made , reasonably reason-ably rlear by tho explanations in the House and in thj Senate, ami we do not see how any one wlio prolends to favor the popular election of Senators is going to excuse himself to his constituents con-stituents on the plea that ho insisted that before he would agree to this, the supervision of Congress over elections, as already provided in the Constitution, must bo taken awny. There is, to be sure, an argument that inasmuch as the States aro represented repre-sented as States in the Senate, their, dignity and independence ought to be above all supervision bv Congress in their function of olocting Senators. But it i3 plain that tho Puthers of the Republic, who framed the Constitution, and who were as jeilous of the powers of their respective State? as any one hns any right, to be, did not take that view. Thoy believed that Congress should have tho power to supervise tho choosing of tho membership of. both houses, and so provided; and so It has been from tho foundation of tho Ro-public. Ro-public. Thero can be no fair argument argu-ment founded upon this State-rights idea at this late day, and it ig a clear case that those who insist upon coupling with tho popular olection of Senators the proposition to do away with Congressional control over the elections, aro acting through unfair, partisan motives, and aro pursuing their objoct in bad faith. So inconsistent and partisan was tho position occupied by Southern Senators on tliis question, thut it was indefensible indefensi-ble in either logic or law; and it is now announced that it has been abandoned, aban-doned, and that tho Democrats will, consent to the passage of the amendment amend-ment for the populnr election of TJ, S. Senators by the people, without insisting in-sisting that tho control of the elections by Congress be surrendered. Accordingly, Accord-ingly, tho amendment proposed is likely like-ly to be submitted to tho States this vear for their ratification. |