English VI.

Question: "Resolved, That senators should be chosen by direct vote of the people."

Brief for the Affirmative.

E. B. CONANT and THOMAS WESTON JR.Best general references: Senator Turpie in Congressional Record, Dec. 17, 1891; Story's Commentaries, S S 703-715; Public Opinion, XII, Nos. 20 and 21 (Feb. 20 and 27, 1892); The Nation LIV, 44-45 (Jan. 21, '92); Elliot's Debates, V, 166-170.

I. A change from the present system is needed. - (a) Present workings not in accord with the intentions of the framers: Story, S S 703-715. - (b) General movement toward political liberty has produced a change of conditions: Sen. Turpie in Cong. Rec. Dec. 17, '91, p. 79. - (1) This change demands popular elections. - (c) Wishes of the people now ignored; e.g., an election in Rhode Island: Public Opinion, XII, No. 20 (Feb. 20, '92). - (d) National and local politics now too much confused: Nation LIV, 44-45 (Jan. 21, '92).

II. Reasons for electing senators by the legislatures no longer exist. - (a) Distrust in popular elections unwarrantable. - (b) Senators are not now considered as mere agents. - (c) Senators act from personal convictions.

III. The character of the Senate would be improved. - (a) The nearer a government agency is to its real source of power, the greater is its efficiency: Cong. Rec. Dec. 1, '91, p. 78. - (b) Senators would not be dependant on political machines: Public Opinion, XII, No. 20. - (c) Incapable men would not be chosen. - (1) Corporations could not elect their men: Public Opinion as above. - (2) The Senate would not be a field for party manipulation; e.g., Hill, May, Foraker: The Nation, LIV, J. 44.

Brief for the Negative.

E. JAMES and T. SPALDING.Best general references: Story Commentaries, S S 699-709; Von Holst, Const. Law, p. 77; Sen. Chandler, Con. Record, '91-92, pp. 3493-3505; Lalor's Cyclopedia, II, 702; Elliot's Debates IV, 63-64, 163-170; Public Opinion, April 7, 1893, XV, 46 (Dec. 20, 1894); Forum, Nov. 1894.

I. Framers of Const. carefully divided the legislative branch into two bodies in order to obtain an Upper House. - (a) Differently composed from lower house; a more able and dignified body. - (b) Representing state governments a link between State and National gov'ts.

II. It has worked well. - (a) Most able dignified Upper House in the world. - (b) This recognized by others. - (1) Copied by Southern Confederacy, Swiss, Germany and South American Republics.

III. Only way to obtain such an independent Upper House is by difference in election. - (a) Present system only practical way to secure such a difference.

IV. No sufficient cause for a change which would - (a) Weaken union of states and national government. - (b) Give greater chance to fraud. - (1) More power to city bosses. - (c) Lower the ability of the Senate by - (1) reducing character of the senators to that of the state governors. - (2) Doing away with probability of re-election. - (3) Tend to disarrange the whole frame work of our government.