The Commoner.
MAT 24, 1012
Election of U. S. Senators by the People
"To oppose the popular election of senators is
to question the wisdom of our form of govern
ment. "Each generation is capable of self-government,
and must suit to its peculiar needs the
machinery of government and the laws."
In the house of representatives, July 20,
1894. Mr.. Bryan said:
Mr. Speaker: I desire to call the attention
of the house to what I consider a very important
question involved in this joint resolution. I
shall not consume time in discussing the
general principle of electing senators by the
people. I believe we can take it for granted
that not only in the country at large, but in
this body, there is an overwhelming sentiment
in favor of restoring to the people the right to
elect their senators by a direct vote. It matters
not by what course of reasoning we reach that
conclusion. We may conclude that the con
stitution was a compromise in the beginning;
that this plan was inserted as a necessity, and
that the necessity having passed away, we can
and ought to change it; or we may conclude
that it was wise at that time, because then they
had poor means of communication, and little
means of knowing the character of the men for
whom they voted, but that with our daily news
papers and our telegraph facilities we need not
now delegate "our powers. But whatever may
have been the reason for adopting the present
plan in the beginning, we realize today that no
man can stand upon the floor of this house and
'defend the election of United States senators
by state legislatures and at the same time de
fend the election of governors and of state
representatives by a vote of the people. No
distinction can be made between this and other
representative offices.
If the people of a state have enough intelli
gence to choose their representatives in the
state legislature; if they have enough intelli
gence to choose their executive officers; if they
have enough intelligence to choose their judges
and their officials in all the departments "of the
state and county they have enough intelligence
to choose the men who shall represent them in
the United States senate. To oppose the popu
lar election of senators is to question the wis
dom of our form of government.
We all recognize that there is a reason for
the election of senators by a direct vote today
that did not exist at the time the constitu
tion was adopted. We know that today great
corporations exist in our states and that these
great corporations, different from what they
used to be one hundred years ago, are able to
compass the election of their tools and their
agents through the instrumentality of legisla
tures, as they could not if senators were elected
directly by the people.'
It is said that conventions will nominate.
Yes, but behind conventions stand the voters,
and the delegate to a convention dare not sup
port a man whom the member of a legislature
might vote for with impunity. The candidate
nominated by the convention must appeal to the
voters, but the candidate chosen by a legisla
tive caucus appeals to no one, and is respon
sible to no one. Men have been elected to the
senate whom no party convention would have
dared to nominate.
We are told that we must not change the con
stitution because it is a sacred instrument.
Who is the best friend, he who flatters and wor
ships or he who reproves and corrects? . He
who would make such alterations as changed
conditions necessitate is a better friend to the
constitution and to good government than he
who defends faults and is blind to defects.
Besides, the federal constitution has already
been amended fifteen times. Amendment was
contemplated and provision made for it in the
instrument itself.
Our state constitutions are frequently
changed, and necessarily so, since circumstances
change from year to year. Pennsylvania has
had four constitutions, Missouri four, Texas
three, Virginia five, etc. Each generation is cap
able of self-government, and must suit to its
peculiar needs the machinery of government and
the laws.
Mr. Speaker, I do not desire, however, to
dwell upon this phase of the" question, but I
want to call attention to what I believe to be'
a very important paragraph in this bill. This
bill makes the selection by direct ',vota; conipiilF
sory, and includes a protection against fedoral
interference. We might as well recognize con
ditions. There is no statesmanship in shutting
our eyes to the facts and asking for things
which, though wo desire them, yet wo can not
Becure. If two-thirds of both houses and three
fourths of the states were democratic, wo might
bo able to secure a provision which would pro
tect the election of United States senators and
representatives against federal interference.
If two-thirds of both houses and three
fourths of the states wore republican they might
secure an amendment electing senators by a
direct vote and putting the control of such elec
tions under the supervision of the general gov
ernment. But there is not today, there has not
been for years, and probably will not bo for
years to come, a time when two-thirds of both
houses, and three-fourths of the states will bo
controlled by one political party. Therefore, it
is worse than useless to attempt to engraft upon
this measure a political principle which can
never be adopted until three-fourths of the
states are in the control of one party.
Therefore the democrat who insists that wo
shall not have the election of senators by the
people unless wo provide against federal inter
ference might just as well insist that we chall
not have it for years to come. The republican
who insists that we shall not "have it until we
authorize federal control might as well an
nounce that he does not want to elect senators
by the people. Wo, as democrats, should
recognize that we must go before republicans
and ask them to vote for this bill and republi
cans should recognize that they can not secure
the ratification of any amendment without tho
aid of democratic members and democratic
states.
Mr. Northway: If you will strike out that
provision you are talking about I will vote for
tho bill.
Mr. Hudson: My friend states that the demo
crats are in favor of electing United States sena
tors by direct vote of the people. I want to ask
him if he does not know that the Omaha plat
form of the populistd declared in favor of the
election of United States senators by a direct
. vote of the people? And in order to call my
friend's attention to the doctrine declared by
that convention, I will read the eighth section
of the platform:
Resolved, That we favor a constitutional pro
vision limiting tho office of president and vice
president to one term, and providing for the
election of senators of the United States by a
direct vote of the people.
Mr. Bryan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that
that is in the populist platform, and I do not
think it makes the proposition any worse be
cause it was embodied in that platform. The
platform adopted by my congressional conven
tion also declared in favor of the election of
senators by a direct vote. The proposition is
good,- it matters not who advocates it. It is
good whether the democrats advocate it, or
whether the republicans advocate it, or whether
the populists advocate it. It is good because
it is consistent with "a government of the
people, by the people and for tho people;" and
I welcome it whether it comes from the popu
list platform or from any other source, or
whether it comes without the indorsement of
any convention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I propose a substitute for
this resolution but I shall not have it read
until later which will simply leave it optional
with the state whether it will elect senators by
a direct vote or not. Tho justification for this
substitute is simple and plain. If wo leave it
optional with the states, we are not compelled
either to prohibit federal Interference or to pro
vide for it. The optional plan gives to the re
publican party all the protection which it now
has.
It gives to the democrats who want to pro
hibit federal interference all the protection
which they now have. If we adopt this substi
tute we leave it to the states to say whether they
wish to elect senators by the people under the
constitution as it Is now. If the republicans say
that will give the right of federal interference,
let them believe so and vote for it, but it does
not alter the constitution. If those who oppose
federal Interference fear the general govern
ment will attempt to control the election of
senators, I say .to, them this bill provides that
the state may go back and elect by ttie present
plan, if it desires, and thus secure all -theJ-pYo-tect'ion
it has now.- Therefore, it gives tho
man who opposes fodoral intorforonco every
safeguard that Is now provided. It given to
tho man who favors fedoral control every safe
guard that ho has today. My substituto noithor
adds to nor takes from tho constitution, so far
as fodoral control is concerned.
I bog you not to yield to party projudico. I
appeal to you who favor popular elections, Is it
not wiser to tako this course than to attempt
to fasten this proposition to soino political ques
tion upon which tho parties dlffor? Wo know
that in tho Fifty-first congross tho republicans
passod a bill through tho house which was moro
stringont than tho law wo rocontly ropoalod in
regard to fedoral elections. Wo know that in
this congress tho democratic party repealed cor
taln federal eloction laws, and on this pasHago
tho democrats voted for and that every republi
can voted against that bill.
Need we any moro ovldonco to provo that tho
republican party stands by its advocacy of
fodoral control? Neod wo any moro ovldonco
to provo that tho democratic party opposes
fedoral Interference? Wo realizo that tho two
parties stand faco to face on this proposition,
and are irreconcilably divided; and is it not wis
dom to choose a plan of olecting which passes
between the linos and docs not antagonize either
side?
Why not, then Mr. Speaker, accept a propo
sition which loaves this political question out,
and which will bring tho people faco to faco with
tho simple proposition: "Do you wish to elect
senators by a direct vote of tho peoplo or not."
Ah, sirs, wo go forth to battle with all the
allied power of wealth against us and If we givo
to them a single excuso behind which they' can
entrench themselves wo shall toll In vain for
this reform. If wo go forth from this hall with
a partisan principle or party tenet tied to tho
proposition to elect sonators by a popular vote,
every railroad corporation, evory gigantic aggre
gation of wealth will be appealing to party pre
judice, and they will not appeal In vain.
If wo attempt to prohibit federal Interfer
ence, they will go to tho republicans and say:
"Are you going to give up tho right of tho
federal government to control elections?" If
federal interference is authorized, they will go
to tho democrats and say: "Aro you going to
surrender tho right of self-government?"
But, sirs, If we eliminate partisanship, if wo
eliminate the question of federal control, and
bring it down to tho naked question: "Aro
you in favor of election of senators by the
people?" wo can defeat any combinations
formed against us.
Tho gentleman from Missouri (Mr. De Ar
mond) said yesterday that men would not voto
for the optional plan if opposed to popular elec
tions because they know that it might soon bo
a burning question in tho states. I believe, Mr.
Speaker, under tho optional plan it would at once
become a burning question in the states. Give
to the people of tho states the right to express
themselves, and you can depend upon It they
will secure this reform.
But, sirs, we have not now that right and
will not soon have it if tho proposition is to be
weighted down by a great political controversy.
I have such confidence in the merits of this
proposition that if you leave it to the peoplo of
the states to decide I believe they will decide
it right. I have such faith in the morit of
tho proposition that I am even willing to leave
them the power to go back, if they want to do
so, because I do not believe that this revolution
will turn backward.
And now, sirs, If we want to secure the elec
tion of senators by the people we must submit a
proposition free from tho republican idea of
federal interference, and free from the demo-'
cratlc idea of noninterference. We may just as
well cease the attempt to secure this reform if
we are going to tie it to federal election laws.
I appeal to members on both sides of this
house, members who, In their hearts, desire this
reform, members, who in their own judgment
believe that the time has come to give tho people
a chance to vote for United States senators,
democrats, republicans and populists alike, to
join in a proposition which will eliminate tho
political question and leave us simply the ques
tion of election by the people or not.
I shall vote for the election- of senators by the
peoplo in whatever form it is presented. If I
must choose between the compulsory election
of senators with federal interference prohibited,
and compulsory election with federal inter
ference authorized, I shall vote to prohibit
federal interference. But if it is necessary to
havi) federal interference permitted, as in the
case of Uhe election' of representatives, in order
torsecuxe rthe eloction of senators- by a direct
tornlikL&L.
irfutf.t
l&.iS.