Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

elected it will be accepted as a triumph for the reactionary despotism that has striven to destroy the freedom of the press, free speech and the just rights of the citizens. If these fundamental principles of free government are overthrown, as it is perfectly apparent is the settled determination of the plutocracy, there will be no more hope for the Socialists to achieve a peaceful or constitutional victory for their principles or ideals than would be the case if they dwelt in Russia. Let the plutocracy triumph in this clear-cut battle with radical democracy, and nothing will be easier than the accomplishment of that which the despotism of privileged wealth so fondly desires to accomplish-the outlawing of Socialist papers, under one pretext or another, and the harassing of all Socialist educational propaganda absolutely essential to the spread of the tenets. Now the Democratic party and its candidates are pledged to destroy root and branch the destructive attempts on the freedom of the press and the rights of the citizens which have been so brazenly put forth by the governmental friends of plutocracy in Colorado and which have been endorsed by the corporation-owned Republican convention by the attempt to force Gabbert again on the people.

Moreover, the Democratic party proposes to go further and to enact measures that will serve to render it forever impossible for the courts to return to the despotism of the Stuarts for precedents in furthering the conspiracy of plutocracy against free government. Now the triumph of the Democratic programme which will achieve these things will benefit no class of citizens more than the Socialists. The triumph of the Republican party will mean the practical outlawing of all Socialists, as it will be everywhere taken as an endorsement of the Peabody-Bell-Gabbert reactionary and despotic régime, while it will rivet the despotism of the trusts and corporations on Colorado and compel weary years of fighting to emancipate the exploited toilers and wealthconsumers from their Egyptian task-masters. The Democratic party is pledged to the initiative and referendum. Many of the most thoughtful Socialists fully appreciate the vital importance of these measures. Others do not, we think, realize the fact that until the despotism of corporate wealth acting through corrupt bosses and money-controlled machines is destroyed, as it can only be destroyed by Direct-Legislation, any victory by

Socialists would be rendered practically impossible by the all-powerful machine-dominated régime sustained by plutocracy; while once obtain Direct-Legislation, and the people have it in their power to obtain and enjoy any reform or progressive measure or system desired by the majority of the electors. And the Socialists no less than the progressive Democrats are certainly democratic enough not to wish to triumph until their victory will express the desire of the majority of the electorate. Hence we can conceive of nothing at the present stage of the movement so vitally important for the Socialists as the securing of Direct-Legislation, which would remove the insurmountable barrier now raised against the achievement by the people of anything antagonistic to the advancing feudalism of wealth.

Moreover, no class of citizens is more vitally interested than the Socialists in overthrowing the reign of corruption and political debauchery inaugurated by the plutocracy, which renders honest elections well-nigh impossible.

Now the coming election affords the opportunity for the people of Colorado to utterly overthrow the despotism of corrupt wealth. It affords the opportunity of redeeming the state and settling forever the seal of a people's righteous condemnation on the shameful attempts to overthrow constitutional government, trample under foot the rights of the people and establish a despotism as autocratic as that which prevails in Russia, as has been attempted and is further determined upon by the corporation-owned and controlled Republican party of Colorado. The opportunity is offered to secure those absolutely vital rights and measures for all the people which must obtain before the Socialists can hope for triumph,-free speech, a free press, the rights of individual citizens, and Direct-Legislation. And by a union of all friends of democratic institutions in this crucial moment a splendid victory can be won; but by division, though a vast majority of the citizens may condemn the despotism and corruption of corporation rule, the enemies of the people will triumph and in so far as Colorado is concerned the day of free government itself will be, for a season at least, a thing of the past; and the victory thus won will retard the cause of justice and reform, not only in Colorado, but throughout the nation.

Thus, for example, if four-sixths of all the votes polled are cast by the friends of free

government, still the bosses and corruptionists may easily win the day, as will be seen by the following: Let us suppose that Judge Lindsey received one-sixth of the votes, the Socialists a fraction over one-sixth of the votes, and the radical democracy a few votes less than two-sixths, while the corporation ticket secured two-sixths of the votes cast. Although four-sixths of the voters opposed corporation rule, yet the corporations would carry the day.

On the other hand, if all the friends of free government unite at this election they can overthrow the corrupt and oppressive rule of the corporations, rendering impossible any further assault on a free press, free speech and the rights of the individual, giving the people the opportunity to enact a Direct-Legislation constitutional amendment, and enthroning the people once more in the seat of power; while under such conditions it will be

perfectly easy for any party or cause to triumph in the future, where its adherents have convinced the majority of the electorate in regard to the wisdom of its claims.

In this great crucial hour, when the rights of a free press, of the individual and of popular rule are in the balance, we believe it is the high and sacred duty of all lovers of freedom and social advance to unite for the election of the only people's ticket which apparently has any reasonable chance of success at this election. To do this will not, it seems to us, mean the sacrifice of any principle, but rather the exercise of wisdom in accomplishing a fundamental victory in the only way in which a victory can be hoped for at the present time. Not to unite will result in no party of progress triumphing and will insure a condition of oppression, lawlessness and despotism that would strike at the very vitals of free institutions.

HENRY CABOT LODGE AS AN APOSTLE OF THE AUTOCRATIC MONEY-CONTROLLED MACHINE AND THE FOE

OF POPULAR RULE.

Senator Lodge: A Man of Wealth and

SE

Education.

ENATOR LODGE, who has been aptly termed "the big boss of Massachusetts politics," is a man of wealth and education. The Boston Herald in an illustrated article on the millionaires of the Senate, published over a year ago, credited him with being worth four million dollars. But whether this estimate was correct or not, he is a man of wealth and of aristocratic and reactionary tendencies. We do not call to mind a single instance in recent years when it has been of vital importance to the privileged interests that are corrupting government and fattening off of the sustenance of the wealth-creators that his influence be cast for them, when he was found defending the people against the aggressions of privileged interests, or, indeed, when he has not been found standing shoulder to shoulder with Aldrich, Spooner, Elkins, Depew, Platt, Dryden, Penrose, Knox and other henchmen of the public-service corporations, trusts and privileged monopolies. At times where the interests of the plutocracy are not seriously threatened, it is helpful rather than otherwise

to the masters of the bosses and the moneycontrolled machine that he, as well as others "should make a who serve the "interests, brave show of defending the people against the aggressions of the criminal rich. This is a part of the game that has been so long played by the Wall-street gamblers and the trust and public-service magnates that they seem to think it can be successfully played indefinitely. But Mr. Lodge is also a man of education and culture.

Senator Lodge's Fatal Choice After Entering Political Life.

In his Harvard days Mr. Lodge was considered a young man with strong leanings toward independence of thought and action, and at that time, if we are not mistaken, he was not only a free-trader in sentiment but a member of the Cobden Club. Certain it is that he displayed a freedom from the trammels of sordid commercialism that gave his friends grounds to hope that the "scholar in politics," as he was often termed, would develop into far more than a machine politician and an autocratic boss whose concern for privileged

interests might well have excited the admira- corporations, the criminal rich and their tools tion of a Quay.

In those days we confess we shared the hopes of many other citizens, that Mr. Lodge might in a humbler but no less worthy manner sustain the high record of Massachusetts for true statesmanship-a record made glorious by Webster, Sumner and Hoar. But when the test came Senator Lodge chose to become a machine politician who should depend upon the privileged interests, as do all the bosses of the money-controlled machines, rather than upon the people for the sources of strength.

We well remember how fiercely Henry Cabot Lodge fought the nomination of James G. Blaine in the eighties and how he made common cause with the Mugwumps until after the nomination of Mr. Blaine. Then he became a sphinx for a time, and it was hoped by many of his friends that though he was then the leader of the party in Massachusetts, he would refuse to stultify himself by supporting the man he had so bitterly denounced and opposed as unfit for the high office to which he aspired. It was not until the night of the Republican ratification meeting in Tremont Temple, after the nomination, that Mr. Lodge definitely announced his decision to work for the election of the man he had regarded as so thoroughly unfit to be President of the United States. We were present at that memorable meeting and were satisfied that night that Mr. Lodge had made the momentous choice, that henceforth he would be a machine politician fighting for the success of the machine and the interests that alone made the machine all-powerful, rather than be a true statesman who placed the interests and concern of the people above all other considerations. We have never had reason to change our opinion from that hour.

Mr. Lodge's Open Opposition to Popular

Rule.

In his oration at the two hundredth anniversary of the founding of the town of Brookline, Senator Lodge amazed his friends by the most astounding exhibition of ignorance or something worse in regard to a great issue that it has been our lot to hear.

The destruction of the corrupt lobby and the equally corrupt money-controlled political machine in Oregon, brought about by the people of that state when they embedded an honest and practical Direct-Legislation amendment in their constitution, has alarmed the

and servants more than anything that has transpired in American political life in recent years. The secret of the corruption that has become so giant-like in our government, no less than of the power of the trusts and publicservice corporations, which enables them to defeat any really fundamental or effective legislation offered to curb the rapacity of privileged interests or destroy the advancing peril of lawless corporations, lies, as no one knows better than the princes of privilege and their political servants, in the money-controlled political machine. Anything that will destroy the autocratic power of the boss and the machine and make the people the real sovereigns by placing in their hands the power to veto the acts of men who have been entrusted with representative power but who have refused to carry out the desires of their constituents or to represent them, necessarily strikes a fatal blow at the unholy alliance of the corporation interests with the boss and the machine. No one knows this better than the aides and allies of the corporations in the high places of our government, and Senator Lodge, speaking in the interests of the aristocracy of privileged wealth and political bosses, attacked Direct-Legislation in his Brookline address.

This was not to be wondered at, in view of the triumph of the people's rule over the bosses and their masters in Oregon under DirectLegislation; for it must be remembered that so long as the people had no power to compel their representatives to represent their own interests in Oregon, they vainly strove year after year to get effective laws passed to meet crying evils of the times. In vain did they strive to secure primary election laws; to secure local option; to gain home-rule for their cities and towns; and to compel the great public-service companies to pay a small portion of the taxes raised for carrying on the government. The bosses and the machine refused to allow any primary law to be enacted giving the people power to select such representatives as they desired. The bosses, the liquor interests and their lobby successfully opposed the local option law demanded by the people. The public-service companies and the bosses refused to allow the cities and towns to enjoy home-rule; and the public-service companies, aided by the political machines and their lobbies, year by year prevented the enactment of laws that would com

pel them to pay a just portion of the taxes. So year by year the people of Oregon, as is the case to-day in Massachusetts and in various other commonwealths, vainly strove to secure the blessings of a truly representative government. The feudalism of wealth, by grace of the boss and the machine, ruled the commonwealth. When, however, the Oregon electorate succeeded in placing in the constitution a practical Direct-Legislation amendment, giving to the people the powers of self-government the powers which differentiate a democratic republic from a class-ruled landthe people secured every one of these needed measures by popular enactment.

Senator Lodge was addressing the citizens of Brookline, the town that for two hundred years has been under the New England townmeeting or Direct-Legislation; a town of over 24,000 inhabitants, which is not only the wealthiest town in the land but is recognized as the model municipality of New England; so clearly he could not attack Direct-Legislation for town government. But after admitting the excellence of this form of government before the people that gloried in direct rule, he next attacked Direct-Legislation for state and nation, using these words:

are

"On the other hand the methods of the town-meeting should never be permitted to trench upon the representative government of state or nation. . . . The essence of representative government is responsibility, and when that responsibility ceases representative government becomes anarchy and we fairly on our way to such scenes as were enacted during the French Revolution, when the Paris mob, breaking into the Assembly or Convention, dictated the passage of laws. The control of the electors over the representative is direct, and if he does not satisfy them he can be replaced, but it is not to be forgotten that he represents not merely the people of his own district but in due proportion the people of the entire state. If responsibility is taken from him by compelling him to vote for measures solely because they have secured a certain number of petitioners, or if he is at liberty to refer measures of all sorts to popular vote, he ceases to be a representative and becomes a mere machine of record. When responsibility vanishes representative government is at an end and all the safeguards of debate and discussion, of deliberate action, of amendment or compromise, are gone for

and we

ever, legislative anarchy would ensue, might easily find ourselves in a position where the mob of a single large city would dominate legislation and laws would be thrust upon us ruinous to the state itself and to the best interests of the entire people of the state."

Had not this oration been read from manuscript, and had not Senator Lodge previously furnished advance copies to the Boston papers, where, in the case of the Boston Transcript, the oration was published verbatim, we should have been inclined to regard the above utterances as incredible coming from an United States Senator. They not only grossly insulted the intelligence of all persons present, assuming that they were ignorant of a subject which every reasonably intelligent person to-day is supposed to be acquainted with, but the amazing statements were so clearly false as to be susceptible of easy refutation, making the recklessness displayed almost beyond belief. To prove the truth of this contention it is only necessary briefly to notice the assertions one by one.

"The methods of the town-meeting," says the Senator, "should never be permitted to trench upon the representative government of state or nation. . . The essence of representative government is responsibility, and when that responsibility ceases representative government becomes anarchy and we are fairly on our way to such scenes as were enacted during the French Revolution, when the Paris mob, breaking into the Assembly or Convention, dictated the passage of laws."

Senator Lodge here opposes Direct-Legislation, first, because he claims it is an attempt to interfere with the responsibility of the representatives of the people on the part of those who have sent their servants to represent them; and, secondly, he claims it is a breeder of anarchy and mob-rule.

In the first place, the question arises, Who are the persons who ask to have a voice ere a measure of vital importance to the citizens becomes a law? Are they a special class, a privileged few, seeking some selfish advantage and thus scheming to prevent the legislator from representing his masters or sovereigns, the people? No. Direct-Legislation is merely a provision by which the principals or the masters of the representatives provide for their own protection against any possible ignorance or corruption on the part of their representatives. Who are the people's servants elected

to represent? The people or the corporations whose interests are opposite to the people's well-being? If they are elected to represent the people, and then defy their wishes, do they represent or misrepresent them? Perhaps nothing better exposes the sophistry of this first contention than the following passage from the Direct-Legislation Primer:

"The Referendum takes from the people's representatives no power that justly belongs to them. The legislators are the agents and servants of the people, not their masters. No true representative has a right or a desire to do anything his principal does not wish to have done, or to refuse to do anything his principal

desires to have done. The Referendum merely prevents the representatives from becoming mis-representatives by doing, through ignorance or dereliction, what the people do not want, or neglecting to do what the people do want.

"A legislative body may depart from the people's will because it does not know what the people's will is, or because the pressure of private or personal interest, contrary to the public interest, overcomes the legislators' allegiance to the people's will. In either case the Referendum is the remedy and the only complete remedy; the only means whereby real government by the people may be made

continuous and effective."

Direct-Legislation not only does not interfere in any way with the proper rights of the representative, but is in perfect keeping with representative government. This was made clear by the Supreme Court of Oregon in the following extract from its decision upholding the constitutionality of the law:

"The representative character of the government still remains. The people have simply reserved to themselves a larger share of legislative power, but they have not overthrown the republican form of government, or substituted another in its place.'

[ocr errors]

From Mr. Lodge's remarks it is difficult to escape the conclusion that he has so long served interests other than those he is supposed to represent-namely, the people that he has lost sight of the fundamental principles that differentiate a democratic republic from a class-ruled government. He seems to imagine that when a representative is once elected his obligation to represent his principals or

masters ceases and he is perfectly free to serve interests diametrically opposed to those he is elected to represent; that he has a right to betray his constituency and that his constituency should not be permitted to stop the betrayal or sacrifice of their interests on the part of their false or corrupt servants. It is not necessary to point out the fact that this view is not only subversive of free institutions, but is as alien to the spirit of republicanism as is the bureaucracy of Russia alien to the spirit of democracy.

But Mr. Lodge raises an alarmist cry and seeks to frighten the people. In so doing he presupposes an ignorance on their part that is anything but flattering. He first falsely assumes that Direct-Legislation is destructive to popular government and on this clearly false assumption he proceeds to argue that it would produce anarchy and mob rule. He reaches the climax of absurdity when he conjures up the specter of a mob of citizens invading the capitol and seeking to overcome the people's representatives. To fully understand the falsity and absurdity of this claim it is only necessary to call to mind the provisions and methods of Direct-Legislation and to remember that nothing in government has ever been found so effective in destroying even the menace of mob-rule, lawlessness or anything that is opposed to rational and constitutional procedure as Direct-Legislation. Wherever it has been introduced it has not only destroyed class-rule and eliminated corrupt lobbies while purifying and elevating government, but it has removed all pretext for mobrule.

lators to act upon measures that they desire By the initiative the people compel legisto have acted upon. The legislators have thus every opportunity to oppose the proposed measure with all the arguments that they can bring to bear against it. If they defeat it the measure will then go before the people with the stamp of disapproval of the legislative body. Here again it will be throoughly discussed through the press and on the hustings before the people are called upon to vote Yes or No on its adoption. Does this extension of an educational campaign and general deliberation, not only in the legislature but on the part of the press, smack of inconsiderate action, mob-rule or anarchy? Is it not almost inconceivable how any man prominently before the people would place himself in so ridiculous and unenviable a light as to attempt

« AnteriorContinuar »