ufmmmmm "Wwi wmngipwuw' wu'wpn
MMIMnp
''W''wW';i'IWHWiimMt " ""'W 'WfcaiilniJiilliilWp
The Commoner.
AUGUSTMI4 1008
3
"PfPW
the' election is past? Why should tho locking of the door bo
delayed until the horse is gone?
AN ELECTION A PUBLIC AFFAIR '
- An election is a public affair. The people, exercising the right
to select their officials and to decide upon the policies to be pursued;
proceed to their several polling places on election day and register
their will. What excuse can be given for secrecy as to the influences
at work? If a man, pecuniarily interested in "concentrating the
control of the railroads in one management," subscribes a largo
sum to aid in carrying the election, why should his part in the cam
paign be concealed until he has put the officials under obligation to
him? If a trust magnate contributes $100,000 to elect political
friends to office, with a view to preventing hostile legislation, why
should that fact be concealed until his friends are securely seated
in their official positions?
This is not a new question ; it is a question which has been agi
tated a question which the republican leaders fully understand
a question which the republican candidate has studied, and yet he
refuses to declare himself in favor of the legislation absolutely neces
sary, namely, legislation requiring publication before the election.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY PROMISES PUBLICITY
How can the people hope to rule, if they are not able to learn
until after the election what the predatory interests are doing?
The democratic party meets the issue honestly and courageously.
It says:
"We pledge the democratic party to the enactment of a. law
prohibiting any corporation from contributing to a campaign fund,
and any individual from contributing an amount above a reasonable
maximum, and providing for the publication, before election, of all
such contributions above a reasonable minimum."
The democratic national committee immediately proceeded to
interpret and apply this plank, announcing that no contributions
would bo received from corporations, that no individual would be
allowed to contribute more than $10,000, and that all contributions
above $100 would be made public before the election those re
ceived before October 15 to be made public on or before that day,
those received afterward to be made public on the day when re
ceived, and no such contributions-to bo accepted within three days
of the election.' The expenditures are to be published after the
election, Here is a plan which is. complete and effective.
POPULAR ELECTION OF SENATORS
. Next to the corrupt, use of money, the present method of elect
ing United States senators is most responsible for the obstruction of
reforms. For one hundred years after the adoption of the constitu
tion, the demand forjihe popular election of senators, while finding
increased expression, did not become a dominant sentiment. A con
stitutional amendment had from time to time been suggested and
the matter had been more or less discussed in a few of the states,
but the movement had not reached a point where it manifested it
self through congressional action. In the Fifty-second congress,
however, a resolution was reported from a house committee propos
ing the necessary constitutional amendment, and this resolution
passed the House of Representatives by a vote which was practically
unanimous. In the Fifty-third congress a similar resolution was
reported to, and adopted by, the House of Representatives. Both
the 'Fifty-second and Fifty-third congresses were democratic. Tho
republicans gained control of the house as a result of the election
of 1894 and in the Fifty-fourth congress the proposition died in
committee. As time went on, however, the sentiment grew among
the people, until it forced a republican congress to follow the
example set by the democrats, and then another and another repub
lican congress acted favorably. State after state has endorsed this
reform, until nearly two-thirds of the states have recorded them
selves in its favor. The United States senate, however, impudently
and arrogantly obstructs the passage of the resolution, notwith
standing the fact that the voters of the United States, by an over
whelming majority, demand it. And this refusal is the more signifi
cant when it is remembered that a number of senators owe their
election to great corporate interests. Three democratic national
platforms the platforms of 1900, 1904 and 1908 specifically call
for a change in the constitution which will put the election of
senators in the hands of the voters, and the proposition has been
endorsed by a number of the smaller parties, but no republican
national convention has been willing to champion the cause of the
people on this subject. The subject vas ignored by the republican
national convention in 1900; it was ignored in 1904, and the proposi
tion was explicitly repudiated in 1908, for the recent republican
national convention, by a vote of 866 to 114, rejected the plank
endorsing the popular election of senators and this was done "in
tho convention which nominated Mr. Taft; few dolegates from
his own state voting for tho plank.
PERSONAL INCLINATION NOT SUFFICIENT
In his notification speech, -the republican candidate, speaking
of the election of senators by the people, says: "Personally, I am
inclined to favor it, but it is hardly a party question." What is
necessary to make this a party question? When tho democratic
convention endorses a proposition by a unanimous vote, and tho
republican convention rejects the proposition by a vote of seven to
one, does it not become an issue between the parties? Mr.
Taft can not remove the question from the arena of politics by ex
pressing a personal inclination toward the democratic position. For
several years he has been connected with the administration. What
has he ever said or done to bring this question before the public?
What enthusiasm has he shown in the reformation of tho senate?
What influence could he exert in behalf of a reform which his
party has openly and notoriously condemned in its convention,
and to which he is attached only by a belated expression of personal
inclination?
THE GATEWAY TO OTHER REFORMS
Hi
'Shall the people rule?" Everv remedial measure of a national
character must run the gauntlet of the senate. Tho president may
personally incline toward a reform; the house may consent to it;
but as long as the senate obstructs the reform, tho people must
wait. The president may heed a popular demand; the house may
yield to public opinion; but as long as the senate is defiant, the rule
of the people is defeated. The democratic platform very properly
describes the popular election of senators as "tho gateway to othor
national reforms." Shall we open the gate, or shall we allow tho
exploiting interests to bar the way by the control of this branch
of the federal legislature? Through a democratic victory, and
through a democratic victory only, can the people secure the popular
election of senators. Tho smaller parties are unable to secure this
reform; the republican party, under its present leadership, is reso
lutely opposed to it; the democratic party stands for it and has
boldly demanded it. If I am elected to the presidency, those who
are elected upon the ticket with me will be, like myself, pledged
to this reform, and I shall convene congress in extraordinary session
immediately after inauguration, and ask, among other things, for
the fulfillment of this platform pledge.
HOUSE RULES DESPOTIC
The third instrumentality employed to defeat the will of the
people is found in the rules of the house of representatives.
Our platform points out that "the house of representatives was
designed by the fathers of the constitution, to be the popular branch
of our government, responsive to the public will," and adds:
"The house of representatives, as controlled in recent years
by the republican party, has ceased to be a deliberative and legisla
tive body, responsive to the will of a majority of the members,
but has come under the absolute domination of the speaker, vho
has entire control of its deliberations, and powers of legislation.
"We have observed with amazement the popular branch of
our federal government helpless to obtain either the consideration
or enactment of measures desired by a majority of its members."
This arraignment is fully justified. The reform republicans
in the house of representatives, when in the minority in their own
party, are as helpless to 'obtain a hearing or to secure a vote
upon a measure as are the democrats. In the recent session of
the present congress, there was a considerable element inthe' repub
lican party favorable to remedial legislation; but a few leaders, in
control of the organization, despotically suppressed these mem
bers, and thus forced a real majority in the house to submit to a
well organized minority. The republican national convention, in
stead of rebuking this attack upon popular government, eulogized
congress and nominated as the republican candidate for vice presi
dent one of the men who shared in the responsibility for the
coercion of the house. Our party demands that "the house of rep
resentatives shall again become a deliberative body, controlled by
a majority of the people's representatives, and not by the speaker,"
and is pledged to adopt "such rules and regulations to govern the
house of representatives as will enable a majority of its members
to direct its deliberations and control legislation."
"Shall the people rule?" They can not do so unless they can
control the house of representatives, and through their representa
tives in the house, give expression to their purposes and their de
sires. The republican party is committed to the methods now in
vogue in the house of representatives; the democratic party is
pledged to such a revision of the rules as will bring the popular
r m
I
mi
iOtl -
