I Have Not Heard It Alleged That Members
Of The State Legislatures Have Been Frequently Constrained By The
Outside Popular Voice To Send This Or That Man As Senator To
Washington.
It was clearly not the intention of those who wrote the
Constitution that they should be so constrained.
But the Senators
themselves in Washington have submitted to restraint. On subjects
in which the people are directly interested, they submit to
instructions from the legislatures which have sent them as to the
side on which they shall vote, and justify themselves in voting
against their convictions by the fact that they have received such
instructions. Such a practice, even with the members of a House
which has been directly returned by popular election, is, I think,
false to the intention of the system. It has clearly been intended
that confidence should be put in the chosen candidate for the term
of his duty, and that the electors are to be bound in the expression
of their opinion by his sagacity and patriotism for that term. A
member of a representative House so chosen, who votes at the bidding
of his constituency in opposition to his convictions, is manifestly
false to his charge, and may be presumed to be thus false in
deference to his own personal interests, and with a view to his own
future standing with his constituents. Pledges before election may
be fair, because a pledge given is after all but the answer to a
question asked. A voter may reasonably desire to know a candidate's
opinion on any matter of political interest before he votes for or
against him. The representative when returned should be free from
the necessity of further pledges. But if this be true with a House
elected by popular suffrage, how much more than true must it be with
a chamber collected together as the Senate of the United States is
collected! Nevertheless, it is the fact that many Senators,
especially those who have been sent to the House as Democrats, do
allow the State legislatures to dictate to them their votes, and
that they do hold themselves absolved from the personal
responsibility of their votes by such dictation. This is one place
in which the rock which was thought to have been firm has slipped
away, and the sands of democracy have made their way through. But
with reference to this it is always in the power of the Senate to
recover its own ground, and re-establish its own dignity; to the
people in this matter the words of the Constitution give no
authority, and all that is necessary for the recovery of the old
practice is a more conservative tendency throughout the country
generally. That there is such a conservative tendency, no one can
doubt; the fear is whether it may not work too quickly and go too
far.
In speaking of these instructions given to Senators at Washington, I
should explain that such instructions are not given by all States,
nor are they obeyed by all Senators. Occasionally they are made in
the form of requests, the word "instruct" being purposely laid
aside. Requests of the same kind are also made to Representatives,
who, as they are not returned by the State legislatures, are not
considered to be subject to such instructions. The form used is as
follows: "we instruct our Senators and request our representatives,"
etc. etc.
The Senators are elected for six years, but the same Senate does not
sit entire throughout that term. The whole chamber is divided into
three equal portions or classes, and a portion goes out at the end
of every second year; so that a third of the Senate comes in afresh
with every new House of Representatives. The Vice-President of the
United States, who is elected with the President, and who is not a
Senator by election from any State, is the ex-officio President of
the Senate. Should the President of the United States vacate his
seat by death or otherwise, the Vice-President becomes President of
the United States; and in such case the Senate elects its own
President pro tempore.
In speaking of the Senate, I must point out a matter to which the
Constitution does not allude, but which is of the gravest moment in
the political fabric of the nation. Each State sends two Senators
to Congress. These two are sent altogether independently of the
population which they represent, or of the number of members which
the same State supplies to the Lower House. When the Constitution
was framed, Delaware was to send one member to the House of
Representatives, and Pennsylvania eight; nevertheless, each of these
States sent two Senators. It would seem strange that a young
people, commencing business as a nation on a basis intended to be
democratic, should consent to a system so directly at variance with
the theory of popular representation. It reminds one of the old
days when Yorkshire returned two members, and Rutlandshire two also.
And the discrepancy has greatly increased as young States have been
added to the Union, while the old States have increased in
population. New York, with a population of about 4,000,000, and
with thirty-three members in the House of Representatives, sends two
Senators to Congress. The new State of Oregon, with a population of
50,000 or 60,000, and with one member in the House of
Representatives, sends also two Senators to Congress. But though it
would seem that in such a distribution of legislative power the
young nation was determined to preserve some of the old fantastic
traditions of the mother country which it had just repudiated, the
fact, I believe, is that this system, apparently so opposed to all
democratic tendencies, was produced and specially insisted upon by
democracy itself. Where would be the State sovereignty and
individual existence of Rhode Island and Delaware, unless they could
maintain, in at least one House of Congress, their State equality
with that of all other States in the Union?
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 78 of 140
Words from 78490 to 79499
of 142339
