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
