Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The commoner. (Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-1923 | View Entire Issue (March 1, 1915)
ynwi,, ""r"? r Zfe The Commoner i VOL. '15, NO. 3 8 it m vT, .. & that will express what I mean I will say that wo must bo caroful and not allow BOSSOCRACY to Uko tho place of DEMOCRACY. If democracy U tho rulo of tho people, then bossocracy is the rule, of the boss, and one of tho things against which I desire to warn you this morning is tho substitution of democracy for bossocracy in tho stato of Indiana. When I say this I do not mean to apply to In diana a doctrine that is not applicable elsewhere. States do not differ much. When the opportun ities are the same, I find that human nature is much aliko wherevor you find it; in politics a republican and a democrat are quite likely to yield to tho same temptations. Bossocracy has been substituted for democracy wherevor the ma chine becamo omnipotent, and it has been as true in tho republican party as in the democratic party. A machine is necessary, but tho political machine, like all other machines in use, is a means to an end and not an end in itself. If a political machine is used by the people to ad vance the interests of tho people it is as useful as is tho engine when the engineer is there to con trol it. But the political machine when not op erated for the benefit of the public, may be as disastrous as an engine with no ono in charge. I come today to speak of tho primary, and I come to speak of it because I love the democracy of Indiana. Tho democrats of Indiana have been so good to mo that I have confidence in them. I have confidence In tho rank and file of the party in Indiana, and I bolivo that it is just as import ant that the democratic voters of Indiana shall control tho democratic party in Indiana as it is that all tho voters of Indiana should control the government of Indiana. I know of no argument that can be made in favor of tho selection of public officials bypopular vote that does not apply to tho selection of the party candidates by popular vote in the pri mary, and the man who says he can not trust tho democrats of the party to absolutely control the party tho democrat who says so says that democrats are not equal to republicans, tor ao iswjlling to have republicans vote in the selec tion of tho officers who are to control the gov ernment. There would bo no objection to a pri mary but for the advantage that some secure through tho old system that allows boss control; I remind you that the primary is so democratic in principle that it has now been adopted in most of the states, democratic and republican. I be lieve" the primary idea originated in Georgia, but it has spread and where it has not yet prevailed it; will prevail. It would be an insult to the In telligence and virtue of the people of this state to sdy they are not willing to put the control of the party in tho hands of the voters of the party. How extensive should the primary be? As ex tensive as politics. I believe that the primary principle can bo applied with safety and should be applied from thfc smallest unit to tho largest unit.' Should tho people of a precinct be allowed to use the primary, in party management as well as the ballot in government control? Yes. Should the people of a county be allowed the use of the primary to control the party, as well as the bal lot to control the government? Y,es. Should the people of the state be allowed to use the pri mary for tho control of tho party organization, as well as for the control of the government?. Yes. And should the people of a nation be al lowed the use of tho primary for the nomination of a -president as well as to use tho popular vote for the election of senators and congressmen? Yes. I know of no unit, great or small, in which tho people are not more trustworty than anyone Svuu would try to act for the people against their wishes. There is more virtue in tfre people than finds expression through their representatives, and I apply it to party management as well as to gov ernment. I have great respect for members of tho legis lature and yet I have never flattered them by tell ing them that they were better than those whQse servants they are. All that I can say of a rep resentative is that he is a necessary evil. Wo have him because wo can notget along without him. If we could get along without hjm wo would never think of using him for a moment. But when the people are numerous it is neces sary for them to act through representatives and the, representative ia good in proportion as he can be controlled. I believe, therefore, in tho primary as the means of controlling tho men who i servo the people, for tho democratic idea of gov ernment is that the people are tho master and tho officials the servants. So much for the exv tent of tho primary. There is another thing about the primary to which I wish to call attention The primary is in an experimental stage, and primary laws in dif ferent states are not the same. But wo are com paring and imitating, and year by ye-r we are removing the defects and adding improvements. One of the improvements suggested is a provision that permits the expression of a second choice as well as a first choice. Arid I would go further and allow a third choice, and I would not object to a fourth choice. Why? BecaUse if you only express one choice you must either nominate by a plurality, or you must provide for a second primary. A second primary is expensive. Ex perience shows that even at the first primary you do not have the full vote out, and if you have a second primary you will probably have a less vote than at the first primary. The system should " not be cumbersome; it should not be expensive; it should not occupy more time than is neces sary. If a plurality only is necessary to a choice there may be a number of candidates and the one who receives tho plurality may not be the one favored by a majority of the voters. And there is another objection to the plurality test, namely, that a man who has money may be able to multiply the candidates of the opposition and thus by dividing the opposition win when he does not have a ma jority. If you allow a second choice and a third choice, and even a fourth choice, you make it possible to find out at ono primary whom "the people real ly prefer, and when you find out whom the peo ple want, then you find out whom the" people ought to have. I am glad to say this in favor of the primary. I would say it even if your platform had not de clared for it, but I can not understand how men elected upon a platform promising the primary, can fail to keep faith with the people who voted for. them upon that platform. And I will venture the assertion that no man who violates the plat form on this subject can go back" to his constitu ents and convince them that the reason he cites them is tile reason that led him to do what he did. I have been in public life a good while, and sometimes after I have heard a man's speech ex plaining his vote I feel like asking him for his REAL reason. I have found that the reasons given are not always the reasons that influence tho one giving them. When I was a young man I read in a paper a little 4tem like this that the distillers, at a na tional meeting, had passed a resolution against prohibition and that the reason they gave was that it would interfere with the use of wine at Sacrament. That was the first instance that I remember of reading of a reason that I knew to. be insincere"; but since that time I have heard many reasons given that, were insincere. I do not know the constituents of these men, but I know the dem ocracy of Indiana well enough to know that they will question the sincerity of every reason given by those who violate the platform and deny to the people the right to select their candidates. And, my friends, I have such a high opinion of the intelligence of the people of Indiana that I think they will not only question the sincerity of the arguments given against the primary but they will know the real reasons that lie behind the opposition. And I suspect that in every case you will find that some special interest has had more influence with the representative than have the wishes of the people whom he misrepresents I hope I have made myself plain. And if you do not understand what I mean you will .understand what your constituents mean when they leave ' you at home and select democrats to speak for those who believe in the right of the people to think for themselves and to control their own government. , And, now, lot -me take a step forward and speak of another thing that I desire to present to this assembly. A constitution is an important thing. We ho lieve in constitutions in the United Statps and i you have read constitutional history you have found that the tendency everywhere is toward making it easier to amend constitutions; the later constitutions are more easily amended than tho earlier ones. I will give you an illustration. . In Now Mexico they recently adopted a consti tution; and that constitution, according to its provisions, was vory difficult tomend; when it was submitted for ratification, an amendment proposed by congress was also- submitted, and the- people repealed the clause of the constitu tion making it difficult to amend and sb changed tho constitution as to make it easy to amend. Our federal constitution is difficult to amend. To amend it a resolution proposing it must be submitted by a two-thirds vote bf bbth houses; then the amendment must be ratified by threes fourths of the states. A majority, you see, can not change it; it .takes two-thirds, p both houses, and if they represent their people it means that it takes two-thirds of tha union, and then, when it is submitted, ,the amendment can be defeated if you, have one more than, one-fourth of the states. ;.. . I. - They were afraid,. in those early days, to fully trust the people,: and as a result we" have la bored along with the constitution that permits a minority to obstruct the will of the majority; it takes quite an overwhelming sentiment to se cure a change. It took us twenty-one years to amend the constitution so as to elect senators by direct vote of the people. It passed the house of representatives five times before the senate would let it pass the senate; but when it once reached the people it was ratified by three-fourths of the states in a very short time. It took us something like sixteen years to amend the constitution. to authorize' an income tax. It took that long to 'get two-thirds of both houses; but when it was submitted to the states, three-fourths of them ratified it in a short time. I believe that we need a change in the constitu tion at Washington, an amendment that will make it easier to amend that constitution in order that reforms may go forward, and not be stopped by those who have an interest in abuses that need correction. Your constitution is hard to amend. As I understa.i-i it, your present constitution can only be amended when the amendment has twice pass ed both branches of your legislature, and then it must be ratified by a majority of the electors. I suppose your courts would decide, as most courts have, that that means not a majority of those voting on -the proposition but a majority of those voting at that election; that gives those opposed to the change the, benefit of, all .the ig norant and all, the indifferent. ,t gives the con-, servative forces of society an und,ue advantage. In one of the amendments that you propose, you have attempted to remove this difficulty, and I think that the change you propose is a desir able one. This is the amendment to which I refer: "An amendment, or amendments, to this con stitution may be proposed at a regular session in either branch of the general assembly, and if the same shall be agreed to by a majority of the members elected, tp each of the two, houses, .such proposed. amendment, or amendments, with the ayes and nays thereon shall be entered on their journals, and it shall be the duty of the general assembly to submit such amendment,' or ainend - ments, to the electors of the state, at the next general election, and if a majority of such elect ors voting on the amendment, or amendments, shall ratify the same, such amendment, or amendments, shall become a part of the 'consti tution. But if a majority of said electors do not ratify the same, such amendment, tir amendments shall be defeated." That is a great improvement, although I am not fully informed as to why tho last sentence was added to it, "A new constitution shall be submitted tothe people of the state for ratifica tion, or adoption, or rejection, only by virtue of an act of the general assembly, a majority of the legal voters of the state have declared that a constitutional convention" etc. I do not know why that is added. If I am fully informed as to the conditions in this state, it seems to me that with such a constitution you have and with so many amendments needed, it would be easier to call a constitutional conven tion to frame a constitution that would be mod ern and be more easily amended than the pres ent constitution, and it would be done more quickly. But, my friends, that is not the point that I desire to emphasize. I mention the difficulty of amendment in order to call your attention to a modern invention iti government, to my mind the greatest that has been proposed in several gen erations. It is knon as tho INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM. -I do not know ftow much you have thought about it. In going over the coun try I have found quite a difference in the amount of information on the subject. I recall that' in Nebraska when we first proposed it eighteen years ago last Bummer, they made fun of us; the n n