picked men, is more capable of electing - a senator than the
mass of people.
Eyler contended that the present system was given
great consideration in the constitutional convention, that
the reasons for placing - the choice of senators in the hands
of the State legislatures have not changed, that the benefits
of the present system were self evident to the members of
the convention. That the Senate as now elected repre
sents the people, and checks rash political tendencies, that
election by the people would often bring misrepresentation
which is worse than no representation, that good men are
not re-elected by the people, and that the present system
must be good because it has produced such men as Clay,
Webster, etc.
Gernerd maintained that the present system of election is
a corner stone of the constitution and should not be changed
for trivial reasons, that state senators are not elected by di
rect popular vote, that popular election would hand the con
trol of the Senate over to political bosses, that bribery would
increase with a system of popular election, that the people
do not favor a change, and that the conservatism of the sen
ate would be destroyed.
The judges were Hon. C. R. Woodruff, of Philadelphia,
Prof Wm. M. Alden, of U. P. and Rev. E. T. Jeffers, of the
York Collegiate Institute. Their decision was i'n favor of
the negative.
After each debate State’s team was tendered a very
pleasant reception, although they say they were not, at that
time, in a very jovial state of mind.
Though twice defeated State is not entirely discouraged
and she is already planning for next year’s work.