mam
?T!riw!pnmi?rpW'l
2
!
'
A-
S '!
The Commoner.
.
VOLUME 7, NUMBERS
! -V--
-'.'"l' . ,.
K:
v
(
,
'!
'al
4
government there 1b a tendency olthor in ono
direction or the other. If we may represent solf
government as the day, and arbitrary and Irre
sponsible government as the night, then most
governments would represent the twilight. Tho
.twilight that preceded tho dawn gradually bright
ens into day. Tho twilight that precedes tho
night ends in darkness. It is very important,
thoroforo, that tho tendoncy of a government
shall bo towards the light. In using the twilight
I recognize that it is not a perfect illustration
bocauso tho dawn always grows, brighter while
tho shades of night always grow darker. Pos
sibly it would bo more accurate to describe tho
contest botweon democracy and centralization,
as like a game of football, in which tho govern
ment m,ay be carried this way or that way ac-
cording as It Is in tho hands of one side or the
other, the ultimate goals being at opposite ends
of the field. In monarchies tho fight for self
government is often made for some particular
reform, without avowing the final purpose and
without discussing fundamental principles, and
so in republics those who attempt to restrict the
power of the peoplo, often, if not always, make
their fight under some mask. In this country
opposition to the rule of the people usually
takes the form of the advocacy of legislation
which removes authority from a point near to
the people to some point more remote fron. them.
This tendency to remove authority from the
locality to a center fartlier away may be de
scribed as centralization. If the principles upon
Which self government rests are sound then, tho
people can best govern whore they are best ac
quainted with the machinery of the government
and with the propositions upon which they are
to act. Every attempt to take authority away
from the community and vest it in some power
outside of the community contains a certain
amount of Infidelity to the democratic theory
of government. Usually there is some partisan
roason which furnishes the justification, but no
partisan reason can remove a fundamental ob
. jection. In some states the police control of
the larger cities is taken out of the hands o
the people living in those cities and deposited
with the governor of the state. No matter on
-what theory this is done it 1s not consistent with
.confidence in the capacity of the peoplo for self
government, and It is certain to bo used as a
precedent for a further weakening of the power
of the peoplo to control their own affairs.
"Just now public attention is being direct
ed to the encroachments of great corporations
upon the rights of the people and the discus
sion of remedies reveals the fact that among
those -who really desire to effectively restrain
corporations there are two distinct classes
those who desire to enlarge the scope of the
federal government and those who desire to pre
serve the integrity and authority of the several
states. I invite your attention to this subject
'.bocattse it Is likely to be the rock upon which
honest reformers will split unless there is a
'clear understanding of the situation. The Jef
fersonlan democrat would not take- from the
federal government any power necessary to the
performance of its legitimate duties, but ho
recognizes that tho consolidation of all the gov
ernment at Washington would be a menace to
the safety of the nation and would endanger
the perpetuity of the republic. He believes in
the preservation of the power of both state and
ieuerai governments, recognizing in the consti
tutional division of thoBe powers the strength of
free government. The advocate of centralization
is always optimistic when the dangers to central
ization are pointed out. He Is not afraid that
any harm can come to the American people, and
yet no enthusiastic advocate of centralization
can talk long without betraying his distrust of
the people. Instead of accepting the theory that
the people should think for themselves and then
select representatives to carry out those
thoughts, ho believes that representatives are
selected to think for the people and he does
not hesitate to build barriers between the gov
ernment and, the voters. While the advocate of
centralization is urging legislation which oblit
erates state lines and removes the government
from the control of the voters, the monopolist
may on the other hand, hide behind the demo
cratic theory of self government and use this
theory to prevent national legislation which may
bo necessary Vh'e democrat who" believes in
democratic principles and who wants io preserve
the dual character of our government must be
on his guard against both.
nnT, "There arc certain things which the locality
can do for itself, anil there are certain things
which only tho federal government can do-
neither tho federal government nor the local
government should be sacrificed to the other.
"The investigation of the large life insur
ance companies has led to the discussion of na
tional remedies and the advocates of centraliza
tion are likely to seize upon this agitation as
an excuse for legislation 'which will take the
business of life insurance out of the hands of
the various states. The democrats should draw
a distinction between federal legislation which
is supplemental to state legislation and -that
form of federal legislation which would substi-.
tute a national for a state remedy. No national
charter should be granted to an insurance com
pany and no federal supervision should inter
fere with the exercise of the power now vested
in the states to supervise companies doing busi
ness in such states.
"So in devising a "remedy for the trusts,
the democratic party should resolutely oppose
any and every attempt to authorize a national
incorporation or chartering trading or manu
facturing enterprises. Congress has control over
interstate commerce and it is the only body that
can deal effectively and efficiently with interstate
commerce, but to control interstate commerce it
is not necessary that ; it should create corpora
tions or over-ride state laws. The democratic
national platform of 1900 proposed a national
remedy 'for the trusts" entirely consistent with
the preservation of state remedies. It suggest:
ed a license system the license to permit a cor
poration to do business outside of the state of
its origin upon compliance with the conditions
of the license, but the license would not permit
it to do business in any other state except upon
compliance with the conditions. provided by the
state. In other words, it would be such a license
as is now granted for the sale of liquor. When
a federal license is issued for the sale of iiquor,
it does not carry with it any immunity from the
laws of the state in which the licensee lives.
The same reasoning should be applied to the in
surance question and to all other questions
which involve remedial legislation. "
"No advocate of centralization should be
permitted to impair the power of the various
states over business done within their borders
under the pretense that it is necessary to trans
fer the power to the national capitol, and no
democrat should oppose necessary federal legis
lation when the powers . of the several states
are properly, safe-guarded. It is possible to
preserve in full force the power of both the fed
eral government and the state government. It
is only necessary that the legitimate functions
of the two governments shall be clearly recog
nized and their spheres duly respected.. I have
mentioned only the question of. insurance and
the trust, question, but there are many subjects
which Involve the issue between democracy and
centralization.
"It is natural that the democratic party
should advocate the election of senators :by a
direct vote of the people for this reform" would
remove a barrier erected between the people
and their representatives in the senate. This pro
vision of the constitution was a compromise be?
tween those who trusted the people and those
who still doubted the capacity of the people
for Bolf government. There is no longer reason
for doubt, and experiences show that the United
States senate has become the bulwark of cor
porate interests. It can not be brought into
sympathetic touch with the peoplo until the
method of election is so changed as to moke
the members of the senate responsible directly
to the people. -.
"The initiative and the referendum are
growing in popular favor because they increase
the control of the people over their own affairs
and make the government more responsive to
the popular will.
"It should be the purpose and constant
effort of the democratic party to bring the gov
ernment into harmony with those who live under
it and to make it reflect more and more their
intelligence, virtue and patriotism. In propor
tion as the democratic party trusts the people
and protects, them it will win the confidence and
support of the people and no one can doubt
the final triumph of such a party without doubt
ing the correctness and growtfi of the princimq
of free government." "is
OOOO
LET THE FOREIGNER PAY IT '
The people of San Francisco asked for tho
removal of the protective tariff on building ma
terial, claiming that it was necessary in order
to enable them to rebuild the stricken city Con
gressman Kahn, republican, was in favor of it
. but the republican party did not dare allow it'
It would have afforded such a striking object
lesson of the iniquities of the tariff that the peoJ
pie would have insisted upon revision,' regard-' r
less of its effects upon the treasury of the re1'7
publican national Committee. . P'K!''"
But why should Congressman Kahn, or any
other republican, favor the abrogation of the':;
tariff insofar as' it relates to building material''
imported for the rebuilding of San Francisco?
Wouldn't it be merely a concession to the for
eigner who now, if republican theories are cor
rect, pays the tax? , '......
'0000 .. .'. ;.":; ..fvj ,....;
NATURE FAKIRS .. ' ' '"
While the president is denouncing nature '
fakirs he still clings to Alexander Hamilton the
greatest nature fakir to be found among Amer- '
lean statesmen. Hamilton "thought that the
average man was a- dangerous beast and that
only the "well born" could betrusted with
power. He put property rights above human
rights and wanted the United States senate 'pat
terned after the House of Lords. . He thought '
that democracy had to be strained through sev
eral official sieves before it could be used. (To
him the government 'was safest when it, was
farthest from the people,. The trouble was he
never got near enough to the people io get ac-
quaintad with their ambitions, habits and ineth-
ods of thought. He distrusted the people be
cause he did not know them. " :
The president has talcen Hamilton for-his -guide
and ha& naturally fallen, into the same ;
mistakes. He wants to do something for the
people, but it does not occur to him that the
people can act for themselves better than any .
one can act for them. .11 the president had
Jefferson's faith in the people he would advo
cate the election of senators by the people, but
in all of his many speeches he has never once
suggested this reform, although three republi-!
can houses have voted for it and something like
half the republican states have" demanded it.
Why does the president ignore it? For the
same reason that he recommends national in
corporation, namely, because he accepts Ham
ilton's ideas of a centraliz'ed government. He
pictures the government as a benevolent despot '
generously guarding the people's interests while
Jefferson regarded the government as a thing
made by the people for themselves a thing not
only made by the people for themselves but a
thing controlled by "the people in their own in
terest. .,
It is the more strange that tho president
should subscribe to the doctrines of. Hamilton
when it "is remembered that his popularity has
been greatest among the masses. He ought to
be willing to trust the judgment of those who
trust him. If he will make a close Btudy of the
animal, man the common man he will find
that he is the surest defender of human rights,
the safest custodian of property rights and the
real bulwark of the state. "The proper study
of mankind is man" and Jefferson was the high
est authority on man. If the president would
sit at his feet he would avoid the dangers into
which Hamilton will lead him.
- - OOOO
'NO "INVIDIOUS COMPARISON"
In his address at Portland, Ore., Secretary
Taft said: "Now, without any Invidious com
parisons, the difference between President
Roosevelt and other reformers is. that when he
speaks he speaks as a man with "the power and
the will to act, and when he speaks of the regu
lation of the railways and their supervision, ao
that they shall offer equal opportunities and
bring about no unjust discrimination in favor
of combinations of wealth,, he passes that up
to congress, and he thus makes good. He does
not have a new platform every month for break
fast, but when he makes an announcement of '
a platform he makes it with a sense of respon
sibility that it Is to be put into legislation and
' into government."
What was the resemblance between the
Roosevelt "platform", wherein the trust mag-"
nates were called "captains of industry" and
the "platform" that referred to them as '.'un
desirable citizens?" ., ' .
What resemblance between tho "platform",
that referred to the democratic resolution
adopted at Chicago as "anarchy" and the "plat
form" in which Federal Judge Humphrey was
publicly reprimanded for Jhis decision in the
beef trust case?
- What resemblance between th$ "platform,"
otherwise known as Secretary Taft's free trade
order, providing that Panama canal supplies be
purchased abroad in order to avoid trust ex-
- actions, and the "platform" which provided for
:-.iui. 'iiLjwa&uJiiR4t.'j
.-.r..
J
.imtZl
-..,
-it . ., .
