holding, that while marriage was simply a civil contract which the parties could enter into, it was a contract that the parties could not rescind; and although they had attempted to rescind it, he was guilty of bigamy in having two wives living at the same time from neither of whom he had been lawfully separated.

THOMAS B. HARDIN, of Seattle, then read before the Association his paper on the subject "How should U. S. Senators be elected?" (See Appendix.)

It

JUDGE MCGILVRA - Mr. President and Gentlemen, I wish to indorse, as empathically as I possibly can, the sentiments of the paper that was just read. I think it was an able one. It shows thorough research and a thorough understanding of the subject matter. is a matter of common history, that every intelligent person understands, and especially members of the Bar are presumed to understand, that the constitution of the Senate-the manner in which it is appointed, I think is the term used, was to have that branch of the government a more conservative body, elected in a different manner and for a longer time. It was intended to be a check upon the House of Representatives in the matter of legislation. Our government has existed for considerably over a hundred years, and it is true — historically true, that within the last twenty or twenty-five years no complaint no general complaint has been made of the manner of selecting Senators. It is only recently, and since the practice has grown up, which originated on this Coast, in the little State of Nevada, where men with money have sought to purchase the position of Senators of the United States. I say that practice is recent, and it originated on this Coast, and it has been practiced more on this Coast than anywhere else in the United States. But it has received from the Senate recently, I might say, quite a severe rebuke; I refer, of course, to the Montana case, which is not yet ended. Now the sole complaint, as I understand it, and the sole reason why it is advocated by some to change the method of appointing Senators and have them elected by the direct vote of the people, is on account of this corruption monied interest which has been brought to bear repeatedly upon States Legislatures. The duty of electing or appointing a Senator of the United States is only an incidental duty that devolves upon every State Legislature. Members of the House and Senate of the

this

State Legislatures are not elected-should not certainly be elected for the sole purpose, or even for the main purpose, of appointing or electing a Senator to the United States Senate; and when the people in any State or in all the States become themselves so negligent, so indifferent to their rights and liberties, that they will permit that to be done, they are in danger- Republican liberty is in danger, and if the people are so corrupt or indifferent as themselves to be purchased, and the Senatorial question now enters into the State election, and if it was sent to the people it would enter into State elections very forcibly. It would be the main question. If a millionaire can manipulate the people of the State of Washington in the selection of their Senators and Representatives, the people have no right to complain. There is the foundation of the corruption. No man is approached with a bribe if his character for integrity is above reproach, and while it is true if it is true, and it undoubtedly is true, that money is used to corrupt State Legislators, would not that same money, with additions to it, be used to corrupt the people? What is the difference, so far as that feature of it is concerned? It is only, I say, about twenty or twenty-five years that there has been any complaint, or any cause of complaint, in regard to the manner of electing Senators of the United States. For nearly a hundred years it has worked well. As is stated, and admirably stated and forcibly stated in this paper, the men that framed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were learned men-able men. The few able men in the country at that time for the population was small these men were all able men, and with hardly an exception, they were patriotic men. They made a study of government the form of government which they should adopt-a special study, and it has worked well, especially in this respect, for one hundred years, or nearly that. Shall we change it lightly; shall we change it without there being a necessity for it? Shall we change it on account of this corruption, when the change would not obviate the difficulty? I think not. I think if this matter is seriously considered, and if this practice should not break down of its own weight, which I hope it will; the moral sentiment of the States is seriously against it, and considerable progress has been made. Two Senators - one Senator from Montana and a Senator

from Pennsylvania have been refused their seats at the last session of Congress. I don't believe, while I believe there is corruption— there is bribery and attempted bribery,-yet I am not prepared to believe that patriotism no longer exists in the breasts of the American citizens; that the American citizens are corrupt and can be bought for a pittance. I believe that the true remedy here is to arouse the public sentiment of the people make an impression upon the moral and religious feelings of the community; call the attention of the people to the fact that they are responsible, and nobody else. Our people, as a general rule, are intelligent, and it

is too true that the moral sentiment is not at the standard it should be, not only in the election of Senators, but in other elections, and I believe there is where the reform is necessary, and there is where I believe the effort should be made, and I believe it will be successful. I am not going to occupy any more time, Mr. President, for I hope that this paper will receive due attention, and we will hear from other men - other members of this Association on this important subject. It is a growing subject, and like every other sort of policy we may have expansion, for instance-whatever the hue and cry is by a few politicians it is too apt to be taken up by the people, but it should be considered, and I have no doubt it will be considered.

MR. DE STEIGUER-Mr. President, I indorse fully everything which was contained in the able paper by Mr. Hardin, but it seems to me there is one additional suggestion which might be thrown out. Physicians divide diseases into organic diseases and functional diseases and a physician would not be considered skillful who prescribed an organic remedy for a functional disorder. Now it seems to me that the present difficulties which we have in the election of senators of the United States are temporary; that they are functional, and not organic, and that it would be useless worse than useless for us to try to revise the vital principles of our government in order to prescribe a cure. In the great body of the Eastern States in fact, nearly all of the states except a fringe upon the western coast and near the western coast, the election of senators in the United States is generally satisfactory. They not only send their best men to the United States Senate, but after they get them there they keep them there. Now in the Western

States, for the troubles which we have now, what is the remedy? It seems to me that the question "How should Senators of the United States be elected?" is answered by asking and then answering another question, and that is: How should Senators of the United States be nominated? When our Constitution was originally framed, I don't suppose the persons who framed it had any idea of the part which party divisions would play in our government; and yet today we have a government which is essentially and vitally a party government. Every organization-every institution which is a success to this country must for the time being-perhaps permanently, but at least for the time being-adapt itself to that circumstance. Therefore, I say, the question is, how should Senators of the United States be nominated? That is a question which the people can settle for themselves very readily in every State. They settled it in one way back in Illinois, in the days when Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas were both candidates for office. At that time they settled in advance, by their State Conventions, which men should be the candidates of the respective parties, not leaving the members of the legislature whom they might nominate and elect to settle that question. I don't believe, for my part, that that is the best and primary remedy, but I believe that so long as party government controls the United States, the remedy is by Legislative caucus. Let the party in majority select its candidate by such legislative caucus, and let it be understood that no defection from such caucus will be tolerated. reason, Mr. President, why we hear so much dissatisfaction with regard to the selection by these very caucuses and in the selections by the legislature where caucuses cannot agree, is this: There is a record of the proceedings; it is known who are there; after the result is announced it is known how each man voted, and at least suspected what methods of corruption were exercised and who the corruptionists were. At the state convention it is not known. That body is irresponsible. The members return to their homes, and two months afterwards nobody knows who the members of the convention were. So I take it that one source of the present dissatisfaction with the method of electing United States Senators is the fact that the legislators are responsible and the members are known whose motives and actions are suspected.

The

Now this is another one of these political questions which, this morning, brought on the animadversion of my friend Judge Jacobs. I regret that the late hour at which the Judge made his protest prevented me from protesting against the protest. I think these political questions- questions of this nature, are emphatically questions which should be considered and discussed by the State Bar Association. The Bar of America, more than that in any other country upon which the sun ever shone, has been one of the great formative influences in the politics and government of this country, and when we cease to consider and discuss these questions, I think we shall be deserting the trust which has been reposed in the profession. I think the question might be stated as the converse of that stated by Judge Jacobs; not so much are these proper questions to be discussed by this body- the questions are proper -they are proper and vital questions; but the question now is, is this a proper body to discuss these questions? Looking at the history of the profession, and taking into consideration the nature and temper of the discussion which we have had upon them, it seems to me emphatically that it is.

JUDGE STILES Mr. President, it seems to me that if the people of any State in the Union have a right to be interested in this question, the people of the State of Washington are the ones. The State has been in existence now for nearly eleven years. Six times the Legislature has met, and every time substantially the whole of the work and attention of the session has been concentrated upon the matter of electing a Senator. Once no Senator was elected at all, and for a space of two years but one Senator sat in the session of Congress. The trouble that has raised this agitation as much, perhaps more than many questions, has been these failures to elect, and they certainly are most striking instances of the inefficiency of the present law. The question before the meeting is "How shall Senators be elected?" Now I don't care to discuss all the matters contained in Brother Hardin's paper, but I am in accord with him entirely upon the fundamental proposition; and that is, that Senators should be elected by the States through their Legislatures. I don't think anyone reading the history of the country, and especially reading the works of the fathers of the country, can get away from the belief that that question was studied, and most sub