The Ouachita Telegraph

THE SENATORIAL QUESTION.

The necessity of the General Assembly choosing at its present sitting, a United States Senator, would be deplorable, if it were purely, and not apparently, a duty not to be neglected. Under the requirements of the U. S. statutes, the General Assembly must proceed to ballot for a Senator. That much goes without question, or denial, since the provisions of the statute are explicit to the effect that the legislature chosen next preceding the expiration of the term of the sitting Senator must proceed on the second Tuesday after its organization, to the election of his successor.

The matter of the election of a successor to Kellogg, or to Judge Spofford should he be seated, has been precipitated by the framers of the new constitution of the State, two years, by providing for the election of a legislature only once in four years. The existing trouble will be readily understood when the two enactments--that of the U. S. Statutes, and the provision of our constitution just noticed--are construed together. The present legislature must elect.

The framers of our new constitution builded wisely, perhaps, in many respects; but in this matter---as in some others--their investigation of law and contingencies, was at fault. It was not intended that the legislature first elected under the new constitution should choose a U. S. Senator, particularly during its first session, if at all. We undertake to say that this particular contingency was never dreamed of in the Convention, and certainly was not by the people. The main, leading idea was the restoration of the State to its rightful sovereigns and to the establishment and perpetuity of a good home government.

The absurdity of proceeding precipitately to the election of a Senator is well illustrated in the doubt and uncertainty existing in the minds of our legislators and in those of prominent journalists as to the proper man to be chosen Senator. It was an unheard-of question until a few days ago. But the more important, because it was not thought of.

The duties of a member of the legislature are matters of deliberation. How are our legislators to deliberate upon a question--and a grave one--never seriously discussed? What is their knowledge of the preferences of their constituents? Can our legislators fairly and wisely represent the views of the people on this subject, when the people themselves have not considered it?

The absurdity, we might say, is too apparent for lengthy comment, or serious dispute; but a little elaboration of an absurd proposition is at times not only allowable, but, as in this case, justifiable.

The members of the General Assembly will understand us when we assert that they were not chosen to select a Senator this year. They will appreciate the fact that they do not know what their friends think of the candidates, positive and probable. The gentleman who may be chosen during the present sitting may be a fit choice; but we submit that Wagner's music of the future is not a part of the Louisiana Democratic platform. Who knows what will be the political standing, in 1883, of the candidate now to be chosen? We are not accustomed in this State to look as much as three years ahead in politics. It may be seen, now, that there are leaders in public affairs, who three years ago were inconsequential factors in the great work of redeeming the State, and that men who were of consequence then are of none now. We may fairly infer that at the end of the next ensuing three years, the same change of estimates may be made.

We approach no delicate subject when we say that times change, and men with them. There is hardly any recollection of politics in this State so familiar even to the average Louisianian as that men have come to the front who were in the rear, and that men who were in the front are in the rear. It may be questioned, in fact, if there ever has been a rear or a front in Louisiana politics--the changes have been so great and informal.

How then can the members of the legislature make a choice now suited to the changes, possible and probable, to come out of the Presidential election of the present year?

It is no idle duty, even ordinarily, to choose a representative in the upper branch of Congress. It is one, in this juncture of National politics, the most reflecting legislator may well shrink from, and it is a position the greatest man in this State may feel a wise distrust in accepting. It seems to us that with either the chooser, or chosen, the leap might be justly regarded a long one in the dark.

The reasoning is plain and sensible--neither the people nor their representatives are prepared for the election of a Senator during the next 80 days.

What is to be done?

The legislature can refuse to elect this term, by informal, or ineffectual balloting, and thus permit the election to go over until its next term, two years hence. This will leave ample time for deliberation, and will not lose the State a representative in the Senate, and may save the Democratic party a funeral.

We may add--not having weighed the claims of the aspirants one with another; not knowing who they are, in fact, and not knowing who ought to represent Louisiana three years hence as U. S. Senator,--that we have no Edisonian light to flash upon the General Assembly revealing the identity of the gentleman to be chosen by its members.

The TELEGRAPH has refrained from the discharge of a duty not yet committed to its keeping. When that time comes, we trust we shall not be found bringing up the rear. At present, we can only submit what we feel is a just and well-considered view of the Senatorial question--and this we do only after such immature consideration as time and the suddenness of the question presented, have allowed.