given. P. and M. was represented by Messrs. Hartz, Eyler,
and Gernerd.
The question was “Resolved that U. S. Senators should
be elected by the direct vote of thep eople, ’’ State having the
affirmative.
Taylor showed that the present manner oi electing U.
S. Senators was a compromise adopted not because of its mer
its so much as because of fear entertained by the small
states that they would be overpowered by the large ones,
that the present system was adopted because at that time
the people were thought incompetent to hold all electoral
power and for these reasons the state Legislatures were giv
en the power to elect senators.
He further argued that the people have proved them
selves competent to elect Senators, that the people, the press,
the State legislatures, the National House of Representa
tives, and some United States Senators now demand popular
election, that the proposed change is in exact accord with
numerous other changes in constitutions, state and national,
in that it increases the power of the people, and that each
State, by electing its own senators by popular vote, has
shown the proposed system to be a success.
Landis maintained that the present system is an in
justice to the American people in that it doubts their ability
to elect United States Senators, that National questions are
made the issue in State elections and that in this manner
State issues are ignored, that the proposed change would
separate State from National issues and thus benefit both,
that the proposed system would prevent deadlocks and the
consequent blocking of all State legislation, that the present
system, by exposing State legislators to such strong tempta
tions to cast their vote for the senatorial candidate having
the most money, is responsible for much of the moral de
generacy in the State legislatures, that the present system
tempts political parties to maintain their political supre-