Only problem is, those days never existed.



The call for the initiative system itself was a national issue as early as 1892; Oregonians first used the initiative to secure the right to ?elect? their federal senators, a demand debated nationally for decades; Oregon's law prohibiting the payment of petition peddlers dates back only to 1935; and, big out-of-state money supported Oregon initiative campaigns almost from the beginning.

Indeed, it is not pulling the nose of reason to argue that Oregon's adoption of the Initiative, and, its use to allow Oregonians to directly ?elect? their federal senators, spared this county a second civil war.

After all, the American experiment almost fell victim to the truism that a centralized authority, once created, strives to become absolute. Most importantly, those who controlled the federal senate defined progress as the building of huge fortunes.

Since the federal senate has veto power over appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a given that those on the High Bench would share the notion that America's business is business.

In 1874, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to use the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection to void a clause of the Missouri Constitution denying women the right to vote, but, in 1894, repeated the notion that corporations were persons within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, and, speaking through Mr. Justice Brewer, voided a Texas law regulating railroad rates.

?* * * Brewer's opinion * * * exposed a philosophical line between (he) and his uncle, (U.S. Justice) Stephen J. Field, who (once wrote) that protection of property rights was the highest goal of the (federal) Constitution.?

Those interested in maintaining this federal bias toward property owners toured the country buying senatorships for like-minded statesmen. Local legislative candidates, after pledging to support the ?correct? senatorial aspirant, received financing for the graft, ballot-stuffing and intimidation essential to the successful late 1800's campaign.

Americans tired of this government by auction. From 1872 to 1913, there were two-hundred-thirty-nine (239) formal calls ?for direct election of the Senate, including 220 state party platforms and 19 national party platforms.?

In 1892, California voters endorsed direct election by a vote of fourteen (14) to (1); Nevada voters weighed in a year later, approving the idea eight (8) to one (1); And, in 1902, Illinois voters sent the same message by a vote of nearly six (6) to one (1).

Thirty-one (31) state legislatures - more than the two-thirds (2/3s) needed to amend the federal Constitution - petitioned Congress for direct election. By 1912, almost as many states, including Oregon, demanded a constitutional convention to write direct election of federal senators into the nation's organic document.

The federal House of Representatives voted five (5) times to send the desired amendment to the states. But the U.S. Senate never concurred, and, warned Oregon Governor T.T. Geer in 1901, ?for obvious reasons probably never will.?

In 1904, a group of Oregon populists used the newly-created initiative power ? allowing voters to make law by petition ? to construct an imaginative end-run on the federal Constitution that allowed Oregonians to ?elect? their federal senators in 1907.

With one state ?electing? its senators, the old appointment system had no chance elsewhere. In 1913, the 17th Amendment spread direct election nation-wide.

Within the decade, federal law began to reflect a concern for Americans other than those in the management class, and, a huge number of Americans no longer lived to work, but, worked to live.