z 7164 R4U55 LISTOF REFERENCES ON THE POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS %a3AIN,13\VV^ -< s ■M -«■ ^lOSANCflfj-^ "^/iaJAINil ]WV ^OFCALIFOff^ ^OfCAllFOft^ ■^<9Aavaan^^^ vaan-i^ o ,^W UNIVERJ//, "^AaJAINTJWV^ ^VlOSANCElfr^ . . ^ o ^tllBRARYO/ ^tUBRARY^/^ ^iOJIWOJO^ '^iOJITVDJO'^ >- ^OFCAllFOfi'^ .^imwms/A ^<5Aavaaii# ^OAavaaii-^^ ,-;;OFCAllF0% ^cxavaan-^N^ >- ^lOSAKCf[i-JV> \m. w^ ^:^MIBRARY<> ^^^MIBRARYO/: ^OJIIVJJO' '*TOJIlV>jO'f^ , ^WE UNIVERJ//V ^lOSANCFlfj^ r-rt UJ %a3AINn3V\V^ ;;OFfAllF0%, o ^OAavaaiHv^ ,^.OFCAIIFO% , \\^E L'NIVERi'/A ^lOSANCElfj>, o " ^TJlJDNVSOl^^ ^tllBRARYa<. ^•i/OJIWDdO'^ .^\^E•UNIVERS/A ^s;lOSACElfj-^ = 5 '%a]AiNn]wv ^^lllBRARYO^ ^tllBRARYQ^ cc: '^'■i/OJIWDJO^ '^WJHV3dO>' ^OFXAIIFO/?^ A'rtEUNIVER% ^vlOSAMCE[fj> _ c VAa]MN1 3WV ^OFCAilF0% ^OFCAllFOftj^ ^OAavaaiTi^ v9Uiv>i{!n;\'^^ ^vVlOSAN&flfj-^ o ^^UIBRARYQr ^ <>^ILIBRARYQ<^ AMEUNIVERS/a ■^^/sajAiNMWv -%odnv3jo>' '^<^0dnv3jo^ LIBRARY OF CONGRESS L- LIST OF REFERENCES ON THE POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS WITH APPENDIX'. DEBATES ON THE ELECTION OF SENATORS IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787, ^1 COMPILED ITNDER THE DIRECTION OF A. P. C. GRIFFIN CHIEF BIBLIOGRAPHER iJNIVERSiTY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES AUG 16 1957 LIBRARY GOVT. PUBS. SERV. WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS LIST OF REFERENCES ON THE POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS WITH APPENDIX DEBATES ON THE ELECTION OF SENATORS IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTIOiN OF 1787 COMPILED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A. F. C. GRIFFIN CHIEF BIBLIOGRAPHER WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 H INTEODT^CTION This is a reprint, with additions, of Senate Document 404 of the Fifty-seventh Congress, first session, which consisted of material furnished by the Library. It contains a list of writings relating to the election of Senators, par- ticularly the proposition to have Senators chosen by the people instead of by the State legislatures. There are included in the List, speeches in Congress, articles in periodicals, and references to general treatises containing discussions on the subject. In an appendix is the text of the debates in the Federal Constitutional Convention on the various methods proposed for the election of "the second branch of the national legislature," followed by extracts from the "Federalist." A. P. C. Gkiffin Chief Bihliographer Herbert Putnam Lilyt'arlan of Congress Washington, D. C, June G, 1901^ 3 LIST OF REFERENCES ON THE POPULAR ELEC- TION OF SENATORS Ames, Herman V. The proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States during the first century of its history. {In American historical association. Annual report for the year 1896, vol. II. Washington, 1897. 442 pp. 8°.) Popular election of Senators, pp. 24, 60-63. Bailey, Joseph W. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, May 9, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 5205-5210.) Favors popular election. Same. Remarks, June 11, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 7, p. 6594.) Favors popular election. Bark-worth, T. E. Should United States Senators be elected by the people. With discussion by A. C. McLaughlin, E. V. Rob- inson, B. A. Hinsdale, H. C. Adams, and D. B. Waldo. {In Michigan political science association. Publications, vol. 1, May, 1893, pp. 78-97.) Baruey, Samuel S. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 8, appendix pp. 441^142.) Favors popular election. Bartlett, Franklin. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 20, 1894. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. S, pp. 7773-7774.) Against poj^ular election. Berry, James H. Election of Senators by direct vote. Remarks, March 11, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 3, pp. 261.5-2617.) Favors popular election. Sa?ne. Speech, May 9, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 5203-5204, 5207, 5208.) Favors popular election. Same. Remarks, June 11, 1902. {In Congressional roconl, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp. 6588, 6590, 6593-6596.) Favors popular election. 6 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Blackburn, J. C. S. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 11, 1902. {Ill Congressional record, vol. 3.5, j)t. 4, pp. 3984-3987.) Favors popular election. Stane. Remarks, May 9, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 5205-5206.) Favors popular election. Sam,'. Remarks, June 11, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp. 6.593-6595.) Favors popular election. Boutell, Lewis Henry. Roger Sherman in the Federal Convention. (In American historical association. Annual report, 1893, pp. 229-247. ) Also printed as U. S. 53d Congress, 2d session. Senate miscel- laneous document no. 104. Breazeale, Phanor. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4118—4119.) Favors popular election. Bryan, William J. Election of United States Senators })y the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pji. 6071, 6072.) Favors popular election. Same. Remarks, July 20, 1894. (In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pp. ITib-Ti'il .) Favors popular election. Burgess, John W. The election of United States Senators hy popu- lar vote. (In Political science quarterly, vol. 17, Dec, 1902, pp. 650-663.) BurroTvs, Julius C. Election of Senators by direct vote. Remarks, March 11, 1902. (Ill Congressional record, vol. 35, pt, 3, p. 2616.) Favors popular election. Same. Remarks, :\Iay 9, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. .35, pt. 5, p. 5204.) Favors popular election. Same. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, June 11, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp. 6593,6594.) Favors popular election. Bushnell, A. R. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, July 12, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6066-6067.) Favors {)opular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS 7 Capron, Adin B. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, \^\\ 4812,481.5.) Favors popular election. Chandler, William E. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, April 12, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 4, pp. 3191-3201.) Unfavorable to popular election. Election of Senators by direct vote. Speech, June 5, 1896. (/n Congressional record, vol. 28, pt. 7, pp. 61.57-6159,6160.) Against popular election. P^lection of Senator by popular vote. (In The Independent, vol. 52, May 31, 1900, p. 1292.) Unfavorable. Chipman, J. Logan. Election of United States Senators b}' the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6060, 6078.) Favors popular election. Clapp, Moses E. Election of United States Senators. Speech, June 11, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp. 6590-6593, 6596.) Favors popular election. Clark, E. P. Electing Senators by popular vote. (In The Nation, vol. 74, Mar. 20, 1902, p. 222.) Clcirk, Walter. The election of Senators and the President by popular vote, and the veto power. (In The Arena, vol. 10, Sept., 1894, pp. 451-461.) Favorable. The election of United States Senators by the peeple. (/n Green Bag, vol. 10, Jan., 1898, pp. 4-6.) Strongly favorable. Corliss, J. B. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, May 11, 1898. (In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4809—1812.) Favors popular election. Election of United States Senators. Speech, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4109—4114.) Favors popular election. Same. Remarks, February 13, 1902. (Jn Congressional record, vol. .35, pt. 2, pp. 1721, 1722.) Crane, Condit. In the seats of the mighty. (/// The Outlook, vol. 01, Jan. 7, 1899, jip. 27-34.) Unfavorable to j)opular election of Senators. 8 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Cummings, Amos J. Election of United States Senators bj- the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (/« Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, p. 6076.) Favors popular election. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11. 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, p. 4815.) Favors popular elections. De Annond, D. A. Election of United States Senators by the peo- ple. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (J>( Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6077-6078.) Favors jjopular election. Smm'. Speech, July 19, 189-1-. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pp. 7724-7727.) De Forest, Robert E. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, July 20, 1891. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pp. 7771-7773.) Favors popular election. Depe'w, Chauncey M. Election of United States Senators. Remarks [submitting amendment], April 10, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 4, pp. 3925-3926.) Against popular election. • Election of United States Senators. Speech, Api'il 11, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 4, pp. 3979-3981, 3987.) Against popular election. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, Ma}' 9, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 520.5-5208. ) Against popular election. Dickinson, John. The letters of Fabius in 1788, on the Federal Con- stitution . . . with additional notes. {In hii< Political writings, vol. 2, pp. 67-165. Wilmington [Del.], 1801. S°.) Defends the method of election and composition of the Senate under the j)rovisions of the Constitution. Direct election of Senators. {In The American monthly review of reviews, vol. 26, Dec, 1902, pp. 644-645.) Direct election of Senators. {In The Independent, vol. 54, July 10, 1902, pp. 1672-1674.) Doan, Robert F,. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6069-6070.) Favors popular election. Dockery, A. ^M. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (/n Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, p. 4819.) Favors popular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS 9 Dubois, F. T. Election of Senators by direct vote. Remarks, March 11, 1902. (7n Congressional record, vol. 3.5, pt. 3, p. 2617.) Favors popular election. Dungan, Irvine. Election of United States Senators b}' the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6075-6076.) Against popular election. Edmunds, George F. Should Senators be elected by the people ? (In The Forum, vol. 18, Nov., 1894, jip. 270-278.) Unfavorable. The Election of Senators. (In Public Opinion, vol. 12, Feb. 20, 1892, p. .500; Feb. 27, 1892, p. 524.) Press comments. The Election of Senators. (/m Public opinion, vol. 14, Jan. 28, 1893, pp. 391-393.) Quotations from press. Favorable. The Election uf Senators. [In Public opinion, vol. 15, Apr. 15, 1893, p. 46.) Press comments. The Election of Senators bj^ popular vote. (In The Independent, vol. .55, Jan. 8, 1903, pp. 106-107.) Election of Senators. Press comment. (In Public opinion, vol. 28, Apr. 26, 1900, pp. 516-518.) Favors popular election. Everett, William. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 20, 1894. ( In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt 8, pp. 7776-7777. ) Against popular election. The Federalist. Edited by Henry Cabot Lodge. jYew York ct Lo/idon, G. P. Putnam^s sonn, 1888. a?fo, (^), 586 jyp. 8°. Election of Senators by State legislatures, etc., pp. 160, 385-386. It has not been thought necessary to note here all the editions of the Federalist. The various editions are described in P. L. Ford's Bibliography of the Constitution. Flagg, John H. The choice of United States Senators. (In New England magazine, n. s.,vol. 14, Apr., 1896, pp. 190-194.) Foraker, Joseph B. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, May 9, 1902. (/n Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 5205, 5208, 5209.) Against popular election. Same. Remarks, June 11, 1902. (/n Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 7, pp. 6.594,6595.) Against popular election. 10 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Fox, C. F. Popular election of L'nited States Senators. (In The Arena, vol. 27, May, 1902, pp. 455-467.) G-antz, Martin K. Election of United States Senators Ijy the people. Iteniarks, July 12, 1S92. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. ti, yjj). 60(j7-fi069. ) Favors popular election. Garrison, Wendell Phillips. Popular elections of Senators. (In The Nation, vol. 54, .Tan. 21, 1892, p. 44.) Favoralile. The reform of the Senate. (In The Atlantic monthly, vol. (58, Aug., 1891, pp. 227-234.) Strongly favorable to popular election. Griffin, Appleton Prentiss Clark, compiler. Debates in the federal convention of 1787, held at Philadelphia, on the election of Senators. June 11, 1902. lipp- 8'-'. {U.S. 57fh Cnn- grem, lut session. Senate document no. Jfi^..) Same. Reprinted in U. S. 67th Congress, 1st session. Sen- ate document no. 40(), pp. 23-.S6. Grosvenor, Charles H. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, July 20, 1894. (In Congressional record, vol. 2(>, jit. 10, appendix, jrt. 2, ji. 1352.) Against popular election. Same. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (In Congres-sional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4S11,4812. ) Against popular election. Hamilton, Alexander. Speech on the Senate of the United States. (In his AVorks, edited by Henry Cabot Lodge, vol. 1, pp. 448-496. New York, 1885. 8°.) Harris, AVilliam A. The election of Senators by the people. (In The Independent, vol. .52, May 31, 1900, p. 1291.) Favorable. "He [the Senator] should be brought more closely in touch with the great masses of the people, who should have greater liberty of choice in his selection." Hawley, Joseph R. Election of Senators l)y direct vote. Speech, June 5, 1896. (/n Congressional record, vol. 28, pt. 7, p. (ilfil.) Against popular election. Haynes, John. Popular election of United States Senators. (/» Johns Hopkins University studies in historical and political science, 11th .series, Nov.-Dec, 1893, pp. 547-560.) Henderson, David B. Election of United States Senators by the people. Keiiiiirks, July 12, 1892. (/n Congrcwional record, vol. 23, pt. . 8^. Election of Senators, pp. 15-20. King, Kufus. The life and correspondence of Ruf us King, compris- ing his letters, private and ofEcial, his public documents and his speeches. Edited by Charles R. King. Neiv Yfffk: G. P. Putnam's son.% 189^-1000. 6 vols. Por- traits. 8°. Election of Senators, vol. 1, pp. 595-599, 607-612. Kirkpatrick, William S. Election of Senators bj- the people. Speech, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 8, appendix, pp. 460-462.) Favors popular election. Kluttz, Theodore F. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. {In Congressional record, vol. 83, pt. 5, pp. 4113, 4117.) Favors popular election. Lanham, S. W. T. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6070-6071.) Favors popular election. Let us have popular election of Senators. (in The American monthly review of reviews, vol. 27, Apr., 1903, pp. 400-401. ) Lloyd, James T. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. {In Congressional record, vol. .33, pt. 5, pp. 4122-4123.) Favors popular election. McComas, Louis E. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, June 11, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol 35, pt. 7, p. 6595.) Against popular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATOBS 13 McDovrell, John A. Election of Senators bj^ the people. Speech, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 3:?, pt. 8, appendix, pp. 220-221.) Favors popular election. McEttrick, Michael J. Election of United State.s Senator.s b^^ the people. Speech, July 20, 1894. (In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pp. 7766-7770.) Favors popular election. McE'wan, T. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (/?i Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4817-4818.) Favors popular election. McLaurin, Anselm J. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 11, 1902. (/?( Congressional record, vol 35, pt. 4, pp. 3983-3984. ) Favors popular election. Mason, George. Senate appointed by State assemblie.s. (In Rowland, K. M. Life of George Mason, vol. 2, pp. 117-118. New York, 1892. 8°.) Reprint of Mason's remarks reported in Madison's debates. Maxey, Edwin. Election of United States Senators. (in his Some questions of larger politics, pp. 67-75. New York, 1901. 12°.) Reprinted from "Self-Culture Magazine, June, 1900." Meyer, Ernst Christopher. Nominating systems; direct primaries versus conventions in the United States. Madison, Wis.: Puhlished hy the author, 1902. xx, (2), 501 pp. <9^. "The popular election of United States Senators," pp. 448-451. Milliken, Seth L. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, July 20, 1894. (/n Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pp. 7770-7771.) Against popular election. Mitchell, John H. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, February 18, 1892. (In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 2, p. 1270.) Favors popular election. Election of Senators by direct vote. Speech, June 5, 1896. (Jji Congressional record, vol. 28, pt. 7, pp. 6151-6152,6161-6162.) Favors popular election. Sa7Jie. Remarks, March 11, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 3, p. 2616.) Favors popular election. 14 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Mitchell, John H. Election of Senators by popular vote. (ZnThe Forum, vol. 21, June, 1896, pp. 385-397.) Favorable. Election of United States Senator.?. Remarks, May 9, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 3.5, pt. 5, pp. 5206, 5209.) Favors popular election. Moffett, S. E. Is the Senate unfairly' constituted? {In Political science quarterly, vol. 10, June, 1895, pp. 248-256.) Money, H. De S. Election of United States Senators. Speech, April 11, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 4, pp. 3976-3979, 3983.) Favors popular election. Morgan, John T. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, May 9, 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 5, pp. 5209-5210.) Against popular election. Muller, Nicholas. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, April 12, 1900. (/n Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. S, appendix, pp. 19Vt-200. ) Favors popular election. Nelson, Henry Loomis. Shall Senators be chosen by the people? {In Harper's weekly, vol. 44, Feb. 3, 1900, p. 113.) Favorable. North-way, Stephen A. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, Julj' 20, 1894. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, pji. 7763-7766, 7770.) Against popular election. Nullifying the popular will. {In The Independent, vol. .55, Jan. 29, 1903, pp. 278-279.) Cites the deadlock in the Colorado legislature as enforcing the argu- ment for popular election. Palmer, ,Tohn M. Election of Senators b}' the people. Speech, Feb- ruary IS, 1892. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 2, pp. 1267-1270.) Favors popular election. Sa7ne. Remarks, April 12, 1892. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 4, pp. 3201-.3204.) Favors popular election. Election of Senators by direct vote. Speech, June 5, 1896. {Tn Congres.sional record, vol. 28, pt. 7, [)p. 6159-6161.) Favors popular election. Penrose, Boies. Election of Senators by direct vote. Submitted amendment, March 14, 19(12. (7« Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 3, p. 2772.) Against popular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS 15 Perkins, George C. Election of Senators by direct vote. Speech, June 5, 1896. (/n Congressional record, vol. 28, pt. 7, pp. 6152-6156.) Favors popular election. Pettus E. W. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, May 9, 1902. {In Congressional record, \-ol. ^ii, pt. 5, pp. 5205, 5209.) Against popular election. Piatt, Orville H. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, June 11. 1902. {In Congressional record, vol. .■?5, pt. 7, p. 6594.) Against popular election. Popular election of Senators. {In Public opinion, vol. 24, iSIay 26, 1898, p. 647.) "Open and serious question." k Popular election of Senators. {In The Outlook, vol. 70, Mar. 22, 1902, p. 695.) Po^vers, II. Hem-}'. Election of United States Senators by the peo- ple. Speech, July 12, 1892. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 8, appendix, pp. 602-604.) Favors popular election. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4812—4814.) Favors popular election. Election of United States Senators. Speech, April 12, 1900. (7« Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4112—4114.) Favors popular election. Reed, Thomas B. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 20, 189.1. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 8, p. 7777.) Against popular election. Reform in Senatorial elections. {In The Arena, vol. 21, March, 1899, pp. 391-393.) Representation in the United States Senate. (7)1 The American monthly review of reviews, vol. 27, Feb. 1903, pp. 219-220.) Ridgely, E. R. Election of United States Senators by the people: direct legislation and graduated tax. Speech, May 11, 1898. {hi Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 8, appendix, pp. 690-695.) Favors popular election. Robb, Edward. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (/)( Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4123-4124.) Favors popular election. Ki LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Rucker, W. W. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4109, 4110.) Favors popular election. Russell, Alfred. Dissatisfaction with the Senate. {In Michigan political science association. Publications, vol. 1, May, 1S94, pp. 41-48.) Favors popular election. Ryan, J. W. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4119-4121.) Favors popular election. Scott, Owen. Election of United States Senators by the people. Remarks, July 12, 1892. (Jn Congressional record, vol. 23,. pt. 6, pp. 6078-6079.) Senatorial deadlocks. (Iji Public opinion, vol. 26, Mar. 30, 1899, p. 388.) Favorable to popular elections. Senatorial elections. (In Public opinion, vol. 30, Jan. 31, 1901, p. 133.) Senators and leg'islatures. (In The Outlook, vol. 61, Feb. 4, 1899, p. 2.58.) Favorable to popular elections. Shafroth, John T. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. .5, pp. 4818-4819, 4824.) Favors popular election. Simpson, Jerry. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4816-4817.) Favors popular election. Small, John M. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 8, appendix, pp. 314-317.) Favors popular election. Spooner, John C. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, May 9, 1902. (In Congressional record, vol. 3.5, pt. 5, pp. 5205, 5206, 5208.) Against popular election. Stewart, William M. Election of Senators by direct vote. Speech, March 11. 1902. ( In Congressional record, vol. 35, pt. 3, pp. 2617-2618.) Against popular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS . 17 Sulzer, William. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, May 11, 1898. (In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 8, appendix pp. 461-452.) Favors popular election. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (In Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, p. 4121.) Favors popular election. Todd, Albert M. Election of Senators by the people. Speech, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, pp. 4820-4824.) Favors popular election. Tongue, Thomas H. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. {In Congressional reco rd, vol. 31, pt. .5, p. 4819.) Favors popular election. Tucker, Henry St. George. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, July 1^, 1892. ( III Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 6, pp. 6060-6066. ) General discussion, pp. 6066-6079. Scwie. Speech, July 20, 1894. {In Congressional record, vol. 26, pt. 10, appendix 2, pp. 1134- 1136.) Favors popular election. Turpie, David. Election of United States Senators by the people. Speech, Dec. 17, 1891. {In Congressional record, vol. 23, pt. 1, pp. 76-80.) Favors popular election. Same. Speech, December 6, 1891. (in Congressional record, v. 27, pt. 1, pp. 73-76.) Favors popular election. Same. Speech, February 0, 1896. {In Congressional record, vol. 28, pt. 2, pp. 1382-1.385.) Favors popular election Election of Senators by direct vote Speech, March 23, 1897. ( /rt Congressional record, vol. 30, pt. 1, pp. 169-173.) Favors popular election. Underwood, Oscar W. Election of Senators by the people. Remarks, May 11, 1898. (/n Congressional record, vol. 31, pt. 5, p. 4811.) Favors popular election. United States. 4^d Congr-e-in, 1st session. Senate miscellaneous document no. 66. Resolution of the legislature of Cali- fornia, in favor of an anicndnient to the Constitution of the United States, providing that Senators ma\' be elected by a direct vote of the people. Feb. 18, 1871. 1 page. 8^. 30318—04 2 18 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS United States. Jf^jd Congrcsfi, lat session. Senate miscellaneous (locuiaent no. fiO. Resolution of the legislature of Iowa, in favor of an amendment to the Constitution, providing for the election of United States Senators tiy a direct vote of the people. Feb. 19, 1874. 1 page. S-. 53d Congress, 1st session. Senate report no. TlM. Part 1. Report by Mr. Chandler from the Committee on Privileges and Elections presenting a statement of his views adverse to the passage of the joint resolution (S. R. 8) for submit- ting to the States an amendment of the Constitution pro- viding for the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. June 8, 1892. 3 pp. 8^. Senate report no. 794. Part 2. Views of the minorit3^ Report b}^ Mr. Mitchell [of the Committee on Privileges and Elections favoring the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people]. July 1,1892. 11pp. 8^. Senate miscellaneous document no. 89. Resolution relative to choosing United States Senators. Mar. 7, 1892. 1 page. 8°. House report no. 308. Election of Senators. Report b\' Mr. Tucker, from the Select Committee on the Election of President and Vice-President and Representatives in Congress. Feb. 16, 1892. 5 pp. 8°. Reports favorably on the "Joint resolution proposiiiu; an amend- ment to the Constitution providing that Senators shall be elected by the people of the several States." House report no. 308. Part 2. Election of United States Senators. Views of the minority. Report by Mr. Rushnell of the Select Committee on Election of President and Vice-President and Senators and Representatives in Congress. Feb. 16, 1892. 3 pp. 8'^. The minority report proposes "a constitutional amendment that will periiiil the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, when the people of any State shall so desire, and not compel any State to do so, if they prefer to retain the present method." 53d Congress, 2d session. Senate miscellaneous document no. 97. Resolution providing for amendments to the Consti- tution regulating the election of President and Vice- President of the United States, and the election of United States Senators by a direct vote of the people. Feb. 22, 1894. 1 page. S-. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS 19 United States. o3d Congress, 2d session. House report no. 944. Election of Senators by the people. Report by ^Ir. Tucker, from the Comnnttee on Election of President and Vice- President and Representatives in Congress. May 22, 1894. 7 pp. 8°. Includes House report no. 368, 52d Congress, 1st session. Favors popular election. 53d Congress, 3d session. Senate report no. 916. Views of the minorit}' of the Comiuittee on Privileges and Elections, favoring the election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people, presented by Mr. Turpie. Feb. 12, 1895. 3 pp. 8-. Proposes an amendment to the Constitution, by which Senators shall be elected by direct vote of the people. Senate miscellaneous document no. 1. Resolution relative to election of United States Senators by direct vote of the people. Dec. 3, 1894. 1 page. 8-. 5I^tJl. Congress, 1st session. Senate report no. 530. Report by Mr. Mitchell, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred "Joint resolution pro- posing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing for the election of Senators by the votes of the qualified electors of the States." March 20, 1896. 11 pp. 8^. Favors popular election. Senate report no. 530, part 2. Views of the minoi-ity, presented by Mr. Chandler. June 5, 1896. 3 pp. 8°. Against popular election. — House report no. 994. Election of the United States Senators. Report by Mr. Corliss, from the Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress. March 30, 1896. 6 pp. 8°. "The object of this resolution is to place in the hands of the people of the respective States the right, if they so elect by constitutional or legislative enactment, to afford the people the privilege of expressing by direct vote their will in the election of a United States Senator." Views of the minority, pp. .5-6. Favors popular election. ooth Congress, 2d session. House report no. 125. Election of United States Senators. Report by Mr. Corliss, from the Conmiittee on Election of President. Vice-President, and Representatives m Congress. January 12, 1898. 6 pp. 8-. Favors popular election. Views of the minority, pp. 5-6. 20 LIBKAKr OF CONGKESS United States. -567 /< Co/K/ns-s. Isf session. House iTport no. 88. Kk'ction of United States Senators. Report by Mr. Cor- liss, from the Committee on Election of President. Vice- President, and Representatives in Congress. January 22, 1900. 6 pp. 8°. House report no. 88. Part 2. Same. Views of the minority, presented by Mr. Rucker. February 7, 1900. 2 pp. 8^". The majority report favors making optional with the states "the privilege of expressing by direct vote their will in the election of a United States Senator." The minority report advocates a con- stitutional amendment requiring that Senators "shall be elected by a direct vote of the people thereof for a term of six years." 57th Congress., 1st .session. Senate document no. 399. Elec- tion of United States Senators by the people. List of prin- cipal speeches and reports made in Congress in recent years upon the proposed change. June 9, 1902. 2 pp. 8°. Senate document no. -106. Election of United States Senators by the people. List of principal speeches and reports made in Congress in recent years upon the proposed change in the method of electing Senators. Also, a reprint of principal documents relating to the subject of the elec- tion of United States Senators. Prepared in the Senate Library, by Clifford Warden. Washington : Government printing office., 1902. 36 pp. 8°. Cover-title. Contains reprints of the following documents; 52d Congress, 1st session. Senate mis. doc. no. 89; 53d Congress, special session. Senate mis. doc. no. 31; 53d Congress, 2d session. Senate mis. doc. no. 97; 53d Congress, 2d session. Senate mis. doc. no. 104; 53d Congress, 3d session. Senate mis. doc. no. 1; 54th Congress, 2d session. Senate doc. no. 26; 57th Congress, 1st session. Senate doc. no. 404. House report no. 125. Election of United States Sen- ators. Report 133- Mr. Corliss, from the Committee on Election of President, Vice-President, and Representatives in Congress. January 21, 1902. 6 pp. 8^. Favors popular election. Vest, George G. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, June 11. 1902. {In Congressional recoid, vol. 45, pt. 7, pp. 6595,6596.) Against popular election. POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATOES 21 Wilson, James. Speech on choosing the members of the Senate by electors; delivered, on 31st Deceml)er, 1789, in the conven- tion of Pennsj'lvania, assembled for the purpose of review- ing, altering, and amending the constitution of the state. {Tn his Works, vol. 3, pp. 313-336. Philadelphia, 1804. 8°.) Winchester, Boyd. The House and the election of Senators. {In The Arena, vol. 24, July, 1900, pp. 14-20.) Unfavorable. Ziegler, Edward D. Election of United States Senators. Remarks, April 12, 1900. (/" Congressional record, vol. 33, pt. 5, pp. 4114-4117.) Favors popular election. APPENDIX DEBATES ON THE ELECTION OF SENATORS IN THE FEDERAL CONVENTION OF 1787 Tuesday, May i!9TH. In Convention, — * * * Mr. Randolph then opened the main business: — * * * He proposed, as conformable to his ideas, the following resolutions, which he explained one Vjy one: * * * * * * * 5. "Resolved, that the members of the second liranch of the National Legislature ought to be elected by those of the first, out of a proper number of persons nominated by the individual Legislatures, to be of the age of years at least; to hold their offices for a term sufficient to ensure their independency; to receive liberal stipends, by which they may be corapensateil for the devotion of their time to tlie public service; and to be ineligible to any office established by a particular State or under the authority of the United States, except those peculiarly belonging to the functions of the second branch, during the term of service; and for the space of after the expiration thereof." * * » Mr. Charles Pinckney laid before the House the draft of a federal government which he had prepared, to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of America: **«*»«♦ Article IY. "The Senate shall be elected and chosen by the House of Delegates; which House, immediately after their meeting, shall choose by ballot Senators from among the citizens and residents of New Hampshire; from among those of Massachusetts; from among those of Rhode Island; from among those of Connecticut; from among those of New York; from among those of New Jersey; from among those of Pennsylvania; from among those of Delaware; from among those of Maryland; from among those of Virginia; from among those of North Carolina; from among those of South Carolina; and from among those of Georgia. The Senators chosen from New Hampshire, Jlassa- chusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, shall form one class; those from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, one class; and those from Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, one class. The House of 23 24 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION Delegates shall luiinbtT these classes one, two, and three; and fix the times of their service by lot. The first class shall serve for years; the second for years; and the third for years. As their times of service expire, the House of Dele- gates shall fill them up by elections for years; and they shall fill all vacancies that arise from death or resignation, for the time of service remaining of the mem- bers so dying or resigning. Each Senator shall be years of age at least; and shall have been a citizen of the United States for four years before his election; and shall be a resident of the State he is chosen from. The Senate shall choose its own officers. Article X. "Immediately after the first census of the people of the United States, the House of Delegates shall apportion the Senate by electing for each State, out of the citizens resident therein, one Senator for every members each State shall have in the House of Delegates. Each State shall be entitled to have at least one member in the Senate." * * * Thursday, Mat 31st. William Pierce, from Georgia, took his seat. In the Committee of the Whoh' on Mr. Randolph's propositions, — The third Resolution, " that the National Legislature ought to consist of tii^o Tjranchex," was agreed to without debate, or dissent, except that of Pennsylvania, given probabl}- from complaisance to Dr. Franklin, who was under.stood to be partial to a single house of legislation. The fourth Re.solution, first clause, ''that the memhers of the first hranch of the National Legislature ought to he elected hy the people of the several States,'''' being taken up: Mr. Sherman opposed the election by the people, insisting that it ought to be b}- the State Legislatures. The people, he said, immedi- ately, should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want information, and are constantly liable to be misled. Mr. Gerry. The evils we experience flow from the excess of democ- racy. The people do not want virtue, but are the dupes of pretended patriots. In Massachusetts it had been fully confirmed by experience, that they are dailv misled into the most baneful measures and opinions, by the false I'eports circulated b\- designing men, and which no one on the spot can refute. One principal evil arises from the want of due provision for those employed in the administration of government. It wotild seem to be a maxim of democracy to starve the public servants. ELECTION OF SENATORS 25 He mentioned the popular chimor in Massachusetts for the reduction of salaries, and the attack made on that of the Governor, though secured by the spirit of the Constitution itself. He had, he said, been too republican heretofore: he was still, however, republican; but had been taught b}^ experience the danger of the levelling spirit. Mr. Mason argued strongly for an election of the larger branch by the people. It was to be the grand depository of the democratic prin- ciple of the government. It was, so to speak, to be our House of Commons. It ought to know and sympathize with every part of the community; and ought therefore to be taken, not only from different parts of the whole republic, but also from different districts of the larger members of it; which had in several instances, particularly in Virginia, different interests and views arising from difference of prod- uce, of habits, &c., &c. He admitted that we had been too democratic, but was afraid we should incautiously run into the opposite extreme. We ought t) attend to the riglits of every class of the people. He had often wondered at the indifference of the superior classes of society to this dictate of humanity and policy; considering, that, however affluent their circumstances, or elevated their situations, might be, the course of a few years not only might, but certainly would, distribute their posterity throughout the lowest classes of societj'. Every selHsh motive, therefore, ever}' family attachment, ought to recommend such a system of policy as would provide no less carefully for the rights and happiness of the lowest, than of the highest, order of citizens. Mr. Wilson contended strenuously for drawing the most numerous branch of the Legislature immediateh' from the people. He was for raising the federal pyramid to a considerable altitude, and for that reason wished to give it as broad a basis as possible. No government could long subsist without the confidence of the people. In a repub- lican government, this confidence was peculiarly essential. He also thought it wrong to increase the weight of the State Legislatures by making them the electors of the National Legislature. All interfer- ence between the general and local governments should be obviated as much as possible. On examination it would be found that the oppo- sition of the States to Federal measures had proceeded nuicii more from the officers of the States than from the people at large. Mr. Madison considered the popular election of one branch of the National Legislature as essential to every plan of free government. He 26 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION o1)served that in some of the States one branch of the Legislature was eomposed of men already removed from the people by an intervening body of electors. That if the first branch of the General Legislature should be elected by the State Legislatures, the second branch elected by the first, the Executive by the second together with the first, and other appointments again made for subordinate purposes b}- the Execu- tive, the people would be lost sight of altogether; and the necessary sympathj' between them and their rulers and oiBcers too little felt. He was an advocate for the policj- of refining the popular appoint- ments by successive tiltrations, but thought it might be pushed too far. He wished the expedient to be resorted to only in the appointment of the second branch of the Legislature and in the executive and judi- ciary branches of the Government. He thought, too, that the great fabric to be raised would be more stable and durable, if it should rest on the solid foundation of the people themselves, than if it should stand mei'ely on the pillars of the Legislatures. Mr. Gerrv did not like the election by the people. The maxims taken from tlie British constitution were often fallacious when applied to our situation, which was extremely ditferent. Experience, he said, had shown that the State Legislatures, drawn inunediately from the people, did not always possess their confidence. He had no objection, however, to an election by the people, if it were so qualified that men of honor and character might not be unwilling to be joined in the appointments. He seemed to think the people might nominate a cer- tain number, out of which the State Legislatures should l)e bound to choose. Mr. RuTi.ER thought an election by the people an impracticable mode. On the question for an election of the first branch of the National Legislature, by the people, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia — aye, 6; New Jersey, South Caro- lina — no, 2; Connecticut, Delaware, divided. The remaining clauses of the fourth Resolution, relating to the qualifications of members of the National Legislature, being postponed, nem. co?i.,as entering too much into detail for general propositions, — The Committee proceeded to the fifth Resolution, that the second [w senatorial] hranch of the National Legidature ought to he chonen hy the first hranch, out of the persons nominated hy tlie State Legislatures. ELECTION OF SENATORS 27 Mr. Spaight contended, that the second liranch ought to be chosen by the State Legislatures, and moved an amendment to that effect. Mr. Butler apprehended that the taking of so manj- powers out of the hands of the States as was i:)roposed, tended to destroy all that balance and security of interests among the States which it was necessary to preserve; and called on Mr. Randolph, the mover of the propositions, to explain the extent of his ideas, and particularly the number of members he meant to assign to this second l>ranch. Mr. Randolph observed that he had, at the time of offering his propositions, stated bis ideas as far as the nature of general proposi- tions required: that details made no part of the plan, and could not perhaps with propriety have been introduced. If he was to give an opinion as to the number of the second branch, he should say that it ought to be much smaller than that of the first; so small as to be exempt from the passionate proceedings to which numerous assem- blies are liable. He observed, that the general object was to provide a cure for the evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy; that some check therefore was to be sought for, against this tendency of our governments; and that a good Senate seemed most likely to answer the purpose. Mr. King reminded the Committee that the choice of the second branch as proposed (by Mr. Spaight) viz., b}" the State Legislatures, would be impracticable, unless it was to be verj' numerous, or the idea of proportion among the States was to be disregarded. According to this idea, there must be eighty or a hundred members to entitle Dela- ware to the choice of one of them. Mr. Spaight withdrew his motion. Mr. Wilson opposed both a nomination by the State Legislatures, and an election by the first branch of the National Legislature, becau.se the second branch of the latter ought to be independent of both. He thought both branches of the National Legislature ought to be chosen by the people, but was not prepared with a specific proposi- tion. He suggested the mode of choosing the Senate of New York, to wit, of uniting several election districts for one branch, in choosing members for the other branch, as a good model. Mr. Madison oVjserved, that such a mode would destroy the influ- ence of the smaller States a.ssociated with larger ones in the same 28 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION district; as the latter would ehoose from within themselves, although better men might be found in the former. The election of Sena- tors in Virginia, where large and small counties were often formed into one district for the purpose, had illustrated this consequence. Local partiality would often prefer a resident within the county or State, to a candidate of superior merit residing out of it. Less merit also in a resident would be more known throughout his own State. Mr. Sherman favored an election of one member by each of the State Legislatures. Mr. PixcKNEY moved to strike out the "nomination by the State Legislatures;" on this question — "Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York. New Jersey. Pennsylvania. Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no — 9; Delaware, divided. On the whole question for electing by the first branch out of nominations by the State Legislatures — Mas.sachusetts, Virginia, South Carolina, aye — 3; Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn- sylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, no — 7. So the clause was disagreed to. and a chasm left in this part of the plan. Thursday, June 7th. In Committee of the Whole. — Mr. Pinckney, according to notice, moved to reconsider the clause respecting the negative on State laws, which was agreed to, and to-morrow fixed for the purpose. The clause providing for the appointment of the second branch of the National Legislature, having lain blank since the last vote on the mode of electing it, to wit, by the first branch, Mr. Dickinson now moved "that the members of the second branch ought to be chosen by the individual Legislatures." Mr. Sherman seconded the motion; observing, that the particular States would thus become interested in supporting the National Gov- ernment, and that a due harmony between the two governments would be maintained. He admitted that the two ought to have separate and distinct jurisdictions, but that they ought to have a mutual interest in supporting each other. "This question is omitted in the printed Journal, and the votes applied to the succeeding one, instead of the votes as here stated. ELKCTION OF SENATORS 29 Mr. PiNCKNET. If the small States should be allowed one Senator only, the number ~will be too great; there will be eighty, at least. Mr. Dickinson had two reasons for his motion — first, because the sense of the States would be better collected through their Govern- ments, than immediately from the people at large; secondly, because he wished the Senate to consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible; and he thought such characters more likely to be selected by the State Legislatures, than in an\' other mode. The greatness of the number was no objection with him. He hoped there would be eighty, and twice eighty, of them. If their number should be small, the popular branch could not be balanced ))y them. The Legislature of a numerous people ought to be a numerous body. Mr. Williamson preferred a small number of Senators, but wished that each State should have at least one. He suggested twenty-five as a convenient number. The different modes of rei^resentation in the different branches will serve as a mutual check. Mr. Butler was anxious to know the ratio of representation before he gave any opinion. Mr. W1L.SON. If we are to establish a National Government, that government ought to flow from the people at large. If one branch of it should be chosen by the Legislatures and the other by the people, the two branches will rest on ditterent foundations, and dissensions will naturally arise between them. He wished the Senate to be elected by the people, as well as the other branch; the people might be divided into proper districts for the purpose; and he moved to post- pone the motion of Mr. Dickinson, in order to take up one of that import. Mr. Morris seconded him. Mr. Read proposed '"that the Senate should be appointed, by the Executive magistrate, out of a proper number of persons to be nomi- nated by the individual Legislatures." He said he thought it his duty to speak his mind frankly. Gentlemen he hoped would not be alarmed at the idea. Nothing short of this approach towards a proper model of government would answer the purpose, and he thought it best to come directly to the point at once. His proposition was not seconded nor supported. Mr. Mauison. If the motion (of Mr. Dickinson) should be agreed 30 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION to, we must either depart from the doctrine of proportional repre- sentation, or admit into the Senate a very large number of members. The first is inadmissible, being evidently unjust. The second is inex- pedient. The use of the Senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch. Enlarge their numl)er, and vou communicate to them the vices which they are meant to correct. He ditfored from Mr. Dickinson, who thought that the additional number would give additional weight to the body. On the contrary, it appeared to him that their weight would be in an inverse ratio to their num- bers. The example of the Roman tribunes wa.s applicable. They lost their influence and power, in proportion as their number was augmented. The reason seemed to be obvious: they were appointed to take care of the popular interests and pretentions at Rome; because the people by reason of their numbers could not act in concert, and were liable to fall into factions among themselves, and to become a prev to their aristocratic adversaries. The more the representatives of the people, therefore, were multiplied, the more they partook of the intii-mities of their constituents, the more liable they became to be divided among themselves, either from their own indisci'etions or the artifices of the opposite faction, and of course the less capable of fulfilling their trust. When tlu' weight of a set of men depends merely on their personal characters, the greater the num!)er, the greater the weight. When it depends on the degree of ))olitical authority lodged in them, the smaller the number, the greater the weight. These considerations might perhaps be com- bined in the intended Senate; but the latter was the material one. Mr. (terrt. Four modes of appointing the Senate have been mentioned. First, ))y the first branch of the National Legislature, — this would create a dependence contrary to the end proposed. Secondly, liy the National Executive, — this is a stride towards mon- archy that few will think of. Thirdly, by the people; the people have two great interests, the landed interest, and the commercial, including the stockholders. To draw both branches from the peo- ple will leave no security to the latter interest: the people being chiefly composed of the landed interest, and erroneously supposing that the other interests are adverse to it. Fourthly, by the indi- vidual Legislatures,— the elections being carried throuah this refine- ELECTION OF SENATORS 31 ment, will be most like to provide some check in favor of the com- mercial interest against the landed; without which, oppression will take place; and no free government can last long where that is the case. He was therefore in favor of this last. Mr. Dickinson." The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agenc}' is indispensable. It will produce that collision between the different authorities which should be wished for in order to check each other. To attempt to a})oli>.h the States altogether, would degrade the councils of our country, would ))e impracticaljle, would be ruinous. He compared the proposed national system to tiic solar system, in which the States were the planets, and ought to be left to move freely in their proper orbits. The gentleman from Pennsyl- vania (Mr. Wilson) wished, he said, to extinguish these planets. If the State Governments were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, the con- secjuence would be that the National Government would move in the same direction as the State governments now do, and would run into all the same mischiefs. The reform would only unite the thirteen small streams into one great curicnt. pursuing the same course with- out any opposition whatever. He adhered to the opinion that the Senate ought to be composed of a large number; and that their influ- ence, from family weight and other causes, would be increased thereb3'. He did not admit that the Tribunes lost their weight in proportion as their number was augmented, and gave an historical sketch of this institution. If the reasoning {of IMr. Madison) was good, it would prove that the nunil)er of the Senate ought to l)e reduced below ten, tiie hightest number of the Tribunitial corps. Mr. Wilson. The subject, it must be owned, is surrounded with doubts and difhculties. But we must surmount them. The British Government cannot be our model. We have no materials for a similar one. Our manners, our laws, the abolition of entails and of primogeniture, the whole genius of the people, are opposed to it. He did not see the danger of the States being devoured )iy the olt will throw light on this discussion to remark tliat an election ))y the State Legislatures involved a surrender of the princijile insisted on by the large States, and dreaded by the small ones, namely, that (if a proportional representation in the Senate. Such a rule would make the body too numerous, as the smallest State must elect one member at lea.'^t. 32 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION Nationiil Government. On the contrary, he wished to keep them from dcvourino- the National Government. He was not, however, for extinguishing these planets, as was supposed by Mr. Dickinson; neither did he, on the other hand, believe that they svould warm or enlighten the sun. Witliin their proper orliits they must still be suffered to act for subordinate purposes, for which their existence is made e.ssential hj the great extent of our country. He could not comprehend in what manner the landed interest would be rendered less predominant in the Senate l>y an election through the medium of the Legislatures, than by the people themselves. If the Legislatures, as was now complainetl, sacriticed the commercial to the landed inter- est, what reason was there to expect such a choice from them as would defeat their own views? He was for an election liy the people, in large districts, which would be most likely to obtain men of intelli- gence and uprightness; subdividing the districts onlj' for the accom- modation of voters. Mr. Madison could as little comprehend in what manner family weight, as desired by Mr. Dickinson, would be more certainly con- veyed into the Senate through elections by the State Legislatures, than in some other modes. The true question was, in what mode the best choice would be made? If an election by the people, or through any other channel than the State Legislatures, promised as uncorrupt and impartial a preference of merit, there could surelj" be no necessity for an appointment by those Legislatures. Nor was it apparent that a more useful check would be derived through that channel, than from the people through some other. Tlie great evils complained of were, that the State Legislatures ran into schemes of paper-money, &c., whenever solicited by the people, and sometimes without even the sanction of the people. Their influence, then, instead of checking a like propensity in the National Legislature, maj^ be expected to promote it. Nothing can be more contradictory than to say that the National Legislature, without a proper check, will follow the example of tile State Legislatures; and, in the same breath, that the State Legis- latures are the only proper check. Mr. Sherman opposed elections by the people in districts, as not likely to produce such fit men as elections by the State Legislatures. 31r. Gekky insisted, that the commei'cial and monied interest would be more secure in the hands of the State Legislatures, than of the peo- ELECTION OF SENATORS 33 pie at large. The former have more sense of character, and will be restrained bj^ that from injustice. The people are for paper-money, when the Legislatures are against it. In Massachusetts the county conventions had declared a wish for a depi'eciatlng paper that would sink itself. Besides, in some States there are two branches in the Legislature, one of which is somewhat aristocratic. There would, therefore, be so far a better chance of refinement in the choice. There seemed, he thought, to be three powerful objections against elections bj' districts. First, it is impracticable; the people cannot be brought to one place for the purpose; and, whether brought to the same place or not. numberless frauds would be unavoidable. Secondly, small States, forming part of the same district with a large one, or a large part of a large one, would have no chance of gaining an appointment for its citizens of merit. , Thirdl}', a new source of discord would be opened between diflerent parts of the same district. Mr. PiNCKNEY thought the second branch ought to be permanent and independent; and that the members of it would be rendered more so by receiving their appointments from the State Legislatures. This mode would avoid the rivalships and discontents incident to the elec- tion by districts. He was for dividing the States in three classes, according to their respective sizes, and for allowing to the first class three members; to the second, two, and to the third, one. On the question for postponing Mr. Dickinson's motion, referring the appointment of the Senate to the State Legislatures, in order to consider Mr. Wilson's for referring it to the people, Pennsylvania, aye — 1; Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New .Tei'sey, Dela- ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, no— 10. Colonel Mason. Whatever power may be necessary for the National Government, a certain portion must necessarily be left with the States. It is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States, so as to carry equal justice to them. The State Legis- latures also ought to have some means of defending themselves against encroachments of the National Government. In every other depart- ment we have studiouslv endeav^orcd to provide for its self-defence. Shall we leave the States alone unprovided with the means for this purposed And what better means can we provide, than the giving them some share in, or rather to make them a constituent part of, 30318—04 3 34 DEBATES IN FEDERAL CONVENTION the national establishment '. There is clanger on both sides, no doubt; but we have only seen the evils arising on the side of the State Govern- ments. Those on the other side remain to be displaced. The example of Congress does not apph'. Congress had no power to carry their acts into execution, as the -National Government will have. On Mr. Dickinson's motion for an appointment of the Senate by the State Legislatures, — Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Penns3'l- vania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aye — 10. ^Vedxesday. June 13th. In CoTninittee of the WhOAilVi \ ^^ %1]DK ^^J^flJMi #,. c-1 i± UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This houk is Dl E on the last dale stamped below. i . 1 % — ^ 24139 '%- V ,^MfliNIVERS/^,, ',, -' m^w \1N(1 ]V^^ ,^ 'S'^f' ^ %aiAlN(lWV >* ^. ^.OFCAL[FO)?^ ^OFCALIFOff^ K i (^ JO ^ OFCAIL RS-//^, .^s^lOS-V =* ^ ^/^ Dl o;^'^ %a3Ai RYO/: ^ ^' 5,^UIBR| \^^M^ %. <^ ^.. ^OFCA ^OAHvaaiH^"^ ^oxw ,^WEUl^lVERV/) aWEUNIVERX/a o xVWS' l^-- '"^OAavaaii-# ^-tjijonvsoi^ %a3A| c^^ ^ ■'CUJIIVJ-: ^^OPr'- 5^ lie iii'i\;cDr;v ^ ^'dEUNIVF^"'- ^ .in\ Awrn rr. ^IIIBRARYO/ <^tllBB ^aOJIlVDJO"^ -jOFCAIIF0% ckOf 5> \^\ s E UCLA-Young Research Library Z7164.R4 U55 y 083 189 9