n
2
The Commoner,
.VOLUME 7, NUMBER 35
;fTr """ijl
ft
&
1
l
u.-
I
! x
v
r
u
ft
i'-
c
not accept his advice. Ills Influence 'as a presi
dential candldato can not yet bo measured, fpr
not a single state lias yet Instructed for him.
Thero arc at least three other presidential can
didates, who are likely to have their own states
behind them Knox, oX Pennsylvania; Fair-
banks, of Indiana; and Cannon, of Illinois.
Fairbanks is tho president of the senate, Cannon
Is tho speaker of tho house, and Knox repre
sents Pennsylvania in the senate. Can ho givo
the "pledge of these men that, congress will act
at once and insure statehood before November,
1908, apd,, if the other presidential candidates
promised It, Is there any assurance that tho re
publish members of the senate and, hpuse would
consent? Even If a majority of hoth tho senate
and the house favored statehood, tho opposition
could talk the measure to death in the senate,
where they have no rule for closing the debate.
If you are to trade your birthright for a mess
of pottage, you ought at least to be sure of re
ceiving tho, pottage.
But why does ho advise you to reject the
constitution and postpone Btatohood? Because
he is opposed to some parts of the constitution.
He has tsuggestod several amendments which
he would, like tohave adopted. Even If the
amendments which he proposed were good
amendments and worthy to be adopted, it would
not be necessary to reject the constitution in
order to adopt them. He speaks of the federal
constitution as a model-one and praises it in un
qualified terms, and yet, when .that constitution
was adopted, it was so unsatisfactory that ton
amendments were adopted immediately after
ward. These amendments were all proposed
during the discussion which preceded the adop
tion ,of the constitution, but tho people saidx
"Adopt the constitution now and .amend it after
wards," and this advice was followed. The
country secured a constitution and a govern
ment, and then proceeded to adopt the amend
ments desired. If Secretary Taft had tho con
fidence he ought to have in your people, he
would have given you the same advice that our
forefathers followed a century and a quarter,
ago.. The democrats can vote in favor of the
constitution because they believe it a good one;
the republicans who desire to change it can
bave as their slogan "Adopt the constitution
now, amend it afterwards." It is much, safer
to postpone amendments to the constitution of
Oklahoma than it was to postpone amendments
to the federal constitution. First, because it is
easier to amend the constitution of Oklahoma.
To amend the federal constitution it is necessary
to have the amendment ratified by three-fourths
of the states,,' after being proposed by two
thirds of both houses of congress or by a con
stitutional convention; whereas, the constitu
tion of Oklahoma can be amended by a majority
vote, ,of the,, people, and, the amendments can be
proposed either by a majority vote of the legis
lature or by a small percentage of the people
acting t through, , petition. ,The initiative and
referendum inake amendment so easy that no
republican, can find an excuse fpr rejecting the
Oklahoma constitution, unless he is really op
posed, to statehood and prefers to have jthe ter
ritory governed through officials appointed from
Washington,
But there is a second reason why it is safer
to adopt the Oklahoma constitution than it was
the federal constitution; viz., because the
amendments suggested by Secretary Taft
deal with, the. property rights, while tho
, amendments a.dopted to the federal constitution
deal w,ith .human rights, If you will compare
tho ten. amendments adopted immediately after
the adoption., of the federal constitution, you
will, find tha,ttfiey were of vital importance and
materially affected the life and liberties of tho
people, hiJetaU amendments-proposed by Sec
retary 'Jalt dqal almost entirely witU property
rights, 4and thosq property rights do not con
cern thp., property of individuals but the prop
erty q, corporations. Surely, if our forefathers
could aqopt a constitution that needed ten
amendments, dealing with important questions
andidifflpult to. secure, tho people of Oklahoma
can affqrd tQ adopt the splendid constitution
thaj hap been submitted, when the amendments
propped bySecretary Taft are not material and,
if they were material. nniii i i rX
by the people, ' ' "
There is one passage in his speech which
I dovnot understand and which seems to con
tain a covert .threat. He says that he is confl
uent that there would he n nw- nhn . ,
this constitution was rejected and that th ere
probably would be "an organization of the. 01.
ganizod territory of Indian Territory Until', vou -
wuiu bl jyjiuy.jior joint statehoooWand .that
jruu wuiuu passim wiui a constitution made up
by persons who are not so patriotic and notso
full of the desire to exactly ascertain tho will
of tho people." Tho last part of the sentence
may be intended for sarcasm, although it is sur
prising that a candidate for president should
speak sarcastically about an effort to ascertain
tho will of the people. "What can be more im
portant than to find out what the people want
and to mako government conform to the wishes
of tho voters? But the covert threat is con
tained in the earlier part of the sentence, where
he suggests that the Indian Territory might be
kept out until after the Territory of Oklahoma
had adopted a constitution. That construction
can be placed upon his language, although, tho
language is so ambiguous that it is not abso
lutely certain what he does mean. Does he
mean to reopen the question of double state
hood? Or does he mean that the people living
in the Indian Territory are to be denied rep
resentation until after the people of Oklahoma
have a chance to adopt a constitution? Would
he oxclude the people of the Indian Territory
because they are democratic? Surely, states
manship has fallen to a .low plane if political
rights are secure only when the voter votes a
particular ticket or connects himself with a par
ticular party.
But what are the objections Secretary Taft
finds to the constitution. First, he is opposed
to the initiative and. the, referendum. This to
him is a fatal defect, and why? Because the
initiative and referendum enable the people to
control their own government. Experience has
shown that with the growth of corporate wealth
an influence has entered into politics which was
absent when our government was founded. Cor
porations desiring municipal franchises have
corrupted city councils and secured franchises
of enormous value without consulting the peo
ple. To prevent this the referendum has been
adopted In many of our cities and will ultimately
be adopted In all of them. Because railroads
and other large corporations have exerted a de
moralizing influence over state legislatures, the
initiative and referendum, have been proposed
for the protection of the people of the state, and,
because the people of Oklahoma have dared to
express more faith in the voters than in those
chosen to represent the voters, Secretary Taft
-would have you postpone statehood. He is on
his way to the Pacific coast. According to his
published itinerary he will pass through South
Dakota; will he rebuke the republicans of South
Dakota for having adopted the initiative and
referendum in that state? He will also pass
through Montana. Will he rebuke the repub
licans of Montana, who have also adopted the
initiative and referendum? He is likely to
speak in Oregon, and there, too, the republicans
have adopted the initiative and referendum. '
Will he expend his wrath upon them, or has
he so exhausted his energies in denouncing the
initiative and referendum in a democratic state
as to be, speechless -when lie talks to the repub
licans of the far west? In the state of Ohio,
one branch of the legislature has already en
dorsed $he' initiative and referendum and the.
other branch is pledged to do so when the legis
lature reconvenes this winter. It is a crime for
Oklahoma to do what other states have done and
what Ohio is preparing to do, viz., enlarge the
power ,of the people to control their own repre
sentatives? The secretary says" that, according to the
Oklahoma constitution, the legislature can re
peal a law passed by the people and that the
people can pass it again and the legislature
repeal it' again. He ought to commend this
rather than condemn it for, if the constitution
had provided that a law passed by the people
could not he repealed by the legislature,-he
would have been sure to criticise that, for that
would have resulted in the enactment of two
kinds of laws, but he forgets that the referen
dum, as well as the initiative, is provided for by
the constitution and that if the legislature at
tempts to repeal a law passed by the people, they
can sit in judgment upon that attempt, as upon
other acts of legislature. And why not have
the referendum? If a governor can veto -a meas
ure passed by a legislature, why deny that power
to the people who elect both governor and
legislature?
His; second objection to the constitution is
found In the clause that "prevents the Consoli
dation of railroads. Thl& objection will hardly
be treated seriously by the public, foV surely
the people have a right to prevent cc-nsoYidatidn
if they want to, and if they find that they have
injured -themselves by 'preventing consolidation
they can' easily amend their constitution sb as
to permit; consolidation. And it wili' be much
easier to secure such an amendment with the
aid of the railroads than it would he 'to secure-
an amendment preventing consolidation with the
railroads opposing such an amendment.
He is also alarmed lest the railroads will
take advantage of the four-mile proposition and
compel tho county seats tq furnish the right of
way. His anxiety on this subject also is with
out foundation, far the county seats can pro
tect themselves by refusing to furniBh the right
of way if they think they are being held up.
But it is amusing to see him objecting to one
provision because it favora the railroads and to
another because it opposes the railroads. The
least he could do would he to pair these two
objections and let one offset the other.
His fourth objection, however, is more
amusing, it is ludicrous. He says: "Fourthly,
and-I have to refer to something not i:. the con
stitution, I believe, because it was stricken out
by amendment, and that is the provision by
which foreign corporations would lose the right
to do business if they take a suit into federal
court." He is certainly driven to an extremity
when he has to make his objection to a provi
sion that has been stricken out. He regards
the provision as a very bad one, aiid instead of
congratulating the convention upon striking it
outy he -uses it as an objection to the constitu
tion of which it -was formerly a part. I think
they ought to have left the provision in, for a
state has a right to prescribe the terms upon
which foreign corporations do business in the
state, and I know of nomore reasonable con
dition than that the foreign corporation shall
submit' itself to the state courts? This provi
sion did not originate in Oklahoma. More than
twenty years ago a similar provision was adopt
ed in the state of Wisconsin, and the supreme
court has held that it is a valid provision, and
the secretary ought to know that this provision
has been adopted in various states because of
the manner in which corporations have abused
their right to invoke the aid of the United
States courts. Litigants have been dragged into
courts distant from them and worn out with
delays and court expenses, until the people of
the states have found it necessary to protect
themselves by this kind of a- provision. The
fact that Secretary Taft finds fault with such
a provision is conclusive proof that he looks at
such questions from the standpoint-of the cor
porations and not from the standpoint of the
people. It shows that his sympathies., are with
the great aggregations of wealth, and not with
the Gtod-made man, whose rights have been
trampled upon and whose interests have been
disregarded.
In presenting his fourth argument he takes
occasion to advance the time-worn argument
that capital is timid and must be very carefully
nursed and pampered. He says; "You know
capital can protect itself; it is not obliged to
go .to one state or the other. All you have to
do Is to show capital that when it comes to
, your state it will have a square deal. If you
can do that, capital will come. If you can not
do that, it will not come." It Is the old plea
that all laws must be "made for capital and none
for the protection of the rights of the Individual.
How different is. the secretary's speech from 'the
speeches" of Abraham Lincoln, wherein he as
serted that, while the republican party believed
in both the man and the dollar, it believed in
the. man before the dollar. Secretary Taft, on
the, contrary, believes in the dollar first and the
man afterward, JLf at all, and he puts property
rights so much above human rights that he
would have youndelay statehood until you can
offer greater. inducements to capital. With Lincoln-tit
wap '!a government-of the people, by
the people and for the people," that was to be
preserved to .posterity. With Secretary Taft
it is a government of capita, by capital and for
capital that lsjto be fastened on , you, or else
statehood is not to be desired.
And thenSOie tells you that he is talking
business. "N6to 1 am talking practical sense,"
- he says "I am not talking demagoguery or
sentiment, I am talking business" Ye'she uses
the terms and phrases of those who regard as
statesmen only, those whose ears are trained to
catch the slightest pulsations of the pocketbook
and who regard as dema'gogues all who attempt
to place restrictions upon corporate wealth or
defend the right of the masses' to life liberty
and the pursuit of happiness.
His next objection to tho constitution is
that it protects 'the laboring ta'en from ' what is
known as government by injunction, -by insuring
them a trial by jury if the contempt complained
of is cdmmitted outside the presence of the court.
A bill to this effect passed the United' States
senate rome twelve yoa'rsagb,,,bulf aV-'sbo'n 1asni
the '-corporations' found1 Out1- aUdutfvcit f,ttiey1
strangled the measure itf'thtf hoWel'1 Bte'nVake'
tfOJI u7l( L f i 'I
' ( miL.Aw4A Mk. iliMdSimSiimm'JMS
&!
