ENGLISH 6.

Debate of April 2, 1896.Question: "Resolved, That U. S. Senators Should be Elected by Direct Vote of the people."

Brief for the Affirmative.J. T. COOPER and F. D. POLLAK.

Best general references: Sen. Mitchell in Cong. Rec. April 22, 1891, pp. 3,655-61; Sen. Turpie, ibid, Dec. 17, 1891, pp. 76-80; Bryce American Commonwealth, (3rd. ed.), I, c, X, XII; W. P. Garrison in Atlantic Monthly, LXVIII, pp. 227-232, (Aug. 1891), W. Clark in Arena X, pp. 453-461, (Sept., 1894); Nation, LIX, pp. 44-45, (Jan. 21, 1892).

I. Change of mode of election would not affect fundamental character of U. S. Senate or fundamental differences between it and Ho. of Rp.- (a) Senators still elected for six years: Bryce, Am. Com., I, p. 115.- (b) Senator still representatives of states-(1) Still apportioned equally among states. Bryce, op. cit. I, 99, 115; Turpe in Cong. Rec., Dec. 17, 1891, p. 78.- (2) New electoral body more representative of state than present one.- (x) People of a state are the state: Bryce, op. cit., I, 113; Mitchell in Cong. Rec., April 22, 1891, pp. 3,659-60.- (c) Difference in mode of election not as necessary or important difference between Senate and Ho. of Rep.- (x) Both houses of all our state legislatures have same electoral body.

II. Change of system would make it harder for bosses and their tools to enter the U. S. Senate.- (a) Such a man would be less likely to be elected even if he were able to control his party's nominations: Arena X, 456, (Sept., 1894).- His personal character does not now affect his chance of election.- (x) If he can secure nomination his chance of election now depends upon his party's chance of carrying the legislature.- (A) A caucus bolt is almost unknown.- (Y) His personal character does not effect his party's chance of carrying the legislature.- (A) His candidacy for the Senate is usually not positively known before the election of the legislature: Ex. Hill, Murphy, Platt, (1881), Smith.- (B) People do not vote against their party's ticket for legislature in the chance that a bad Senatorial nomination may be made.- (2) Under proposed system his character would greatly hurt his chance of election.- (X) He would be directly before the people.- (y) It would repel the independent vote.- (z) It would gain no votes for him.- (b) Such a man would be less likely to be nominated.- (1) Legislative caucus is not now restrained from making bad nominations by fear of defeat.- (x) Caucus nominee is sure of election.- (2) Caucus cannot be trusted to choose good men voluntarity.- (x) Character of our legislators not sufficiently good: Bryce, (2nd ed.), op. cit., I, pp. 515-520.- (y) Specific examples of unfit nominations prove this: Quay, Cameron, Gorman, Smith, Hill, Murphy, Platt, Blair, Chandler, Sellinger, Thurston.- (3) Convention would be restrained from nominating a boss by fear of defeat at polls.

III. Change of system would make it harder for "boodlers" to enter the U. S. Senate: Public Opinion, XIV, 391 (Jan. 28, 1893); Bryce, op. cit. I, 101; Whitehill in Cong. Rec. April 22, 1891, p. 3658. (a) Nominations would be less likely to be secured by bribing: Arena X, p. 455 (Sept. 1894).- (1) Convention bribery less likely to be attempted.- (X) Risk of discovery greater.- (A) More persons to be approached.- (B) Longer interval before election during which attention is paid to circumstances of nomination.- (2) Competitive bribery less likely to succeed.- (X) Bribes offered much smaller.- (A) Convention nomination worth less.- (B) Single vote in convention of less importance than single vote in caucus.- (C) Risk of discovery less.- (b) Boodle candidates less likely to succeed if nominated.- (1) Such candidates admittedly very weak at polls.

IV. Change of system would improve the personnel of our state legislatures.- (a) Present system directly induces nominations of unfit men for legislature. (1) Bosses nominate such men to help themselves to Senate: Pub. Op. XIV, 393 (Jan. 28, 1893).- (b) Present system prevents defeat of unfit candidates when nomiated.- (1) People dare not vote against them for fear of losing senatorship for their party: Atlantic, LVIII, p, 229 (Aug. 1891); Mitchell in Cong. Rec. April 22, 1891, p. 3658.

V. Change of system would tend to take national issues out of state politics.- (a) It would directly destroy the legitimate reasons for voting on national lines for the state legislature: Bryce, op. cit. pp. 100, 567; Atlantic, LXVIII, p. 228 (Aug. 1891).- (b) It would tend to do away with "national voting" in other state contests.- (1) The choice of Senators by the legislatures makes people believe there is a necessary connection between all state and national politics: Nation, LIV, p. 45 (Jan. 21, 1892).

[The brief for the negative will be published Monday].