« ПретходнаНастави »
more time and thought than most people have been willing to give to it. In early days in this country, when there were no great chances for making money by special gifts from the government, there was not such great temptation. In recent years the prizes to be gained through getting control of some state or city government have been dazzling. It is said that when General Blücher, a Prussian officer who fought at Waterloo, visited England, he was taken up into the Tower of London. When he saw the great city, he exclaimed, “What a chance for plunder!” As we read the history of the Thirty Years' War, where the chief motives of campaigns seemed to be to capture and plunder cities, we realize how well General Blücher stated the old military point of view. A city is a great chance for plunder. In modern times the easy way to plunder has been not by an army but by votes. The city of New York has given away millions upon millions to groups of men. Other cities have given less amounts.
No wonder that when there have been such prizes it has been hard for the people to maintain self-government. In early times, the struggle for democracy was against a king or a nobility. Now it is against the invisible government. We do not need to be discouraged. Now that we understand the case better, we are in a much better situation. Practices which were common twenty-five or even ten years ago are now condemned. The very fact that the invisible government is no longer invisible, but is seen and understood, robs it of power.
We must not think that the railway and insurance managers and other business leaders who have sought to control government have been especially wicked men.
No need for discouragement
Many of them, when their methods have been exposed and denounced, have been greatly surprised at the indignation felt against them. Some have died brokenhearted. They were simply trying to gain profit and advantage without realizing how contrary their practice was to good government.
Besides checks and balances, and the invisible gov- Long ernment, one of the greatest hindrances to self-govern- ballot ment at present is the great number of offices which are filled by election. In a small town, where people all know each other, an election is a good way to choose officers, but in a state or a city it is impossible for most of the voters to learn about many candidates. Hence, when a large number are to be voted for the voter either has to depend upon voting the party ticket straight or else has to vote blindly. In some of the states, so many candidates are on the ballot that it is quite impossible to vote intelligently. At the formation of the state government, such officers as governor, lieutenant governor, and members of the legislature were provided for. As time has gone on other officers of various kinds have been added-secretary of state, treasurer, judges, superintendent of public instruction, and even clerks of courts. Counties and cities have numerous officers. One can learn something about candidates from the newspapers, but little is usually said about the candidates for the minor offices. At the last presidential election each voter in Chicago was called upon to express his choice for twenty-nine presidential electors, and for over fifty state, county, sanitary district, and city officers. Of course he need not bother himself about the presidential electors, for he could merely look to see whether they were for Wilson, Hughes, Benson, or Hanley. He also knew something
about the candidates for governor; but as to the rest he probably knew almost nothing.
The natural result of a long ballot is that only the inside, or professional, politician knows what he is doing. To vote for fifty officers at one time is not really government by the people; it is government by the machine.” A very unfit candidate may be smuggled into office by this method. It deserves to be called “unpopular government” rather than “popular government."
The plan proposed to remedy this is the short ballot, The principle of this is first, that only those offices should be elective which have to do with the policy of the government and are important enough to attract and deserve public interest; second, that very few offices should be filled by election at any one time, so as to permit the people to find out what sort of men they are voting for.
STEPS TOWARD GREATER SELF-GOVERNMENT
PARTIES AND THE PRESIDENCY
NE step toward more direct self-government was Function soon taken. The roundabout way of choosing of the
electoral the President by electors was never abolished,
college but the people found a way to vote directly for Presi- changed dent. A candidate was nominated before the electors were chosen. A set of electors who would vote for this candidate was then chosen, at first by the legislatures of the states, later by popular vote after having been nominated by party conventions. So at the last election the Democratic Party nominated Woodrow Wilson, the Republican Party Charles E. Hughes, the Prohibition Party J. Frank Hanley, the Socialist Party Allan L. Benson. In every state each of these parties also nominated a set of electors. The voter cast his vote for the electors. But he paid no attention to who these electors were. He knew that he was really voting for Wilson, Hughes, Hanley, or Benson. He knew that no elector on the Democratic ticket would dare to vote for anybody but Wilson.
Nothing is said in the Constitution about political Parties parties. Until very recently they have not been recog- as an nized by law in any way, and yet we all know that agency of
democracy when any one is to be chosen for any office the first question asked is, What party does he belong to? We know that if any one is to be elected governor or President, he is first nominated by some political party.
Why is this, and how did it come about that the real government is carried on by an agency which was not thought of at all in the Constitution?
The party really arose to supply the lack which men felt as soon as they began to carry on the government under the new Constitution. The Constitution had made it difficult for any one body to do anything unless several other bodies consented. If now the people who thought alike on some matter wanted to make laws to carry out their views, there was no machinery by which to do it. It was natural for them to combine and choose men as senators or representatives or President who would carry out their policy. The party was then a necessary means of self-government.
The makers of the Constitution were afraid of parties. They thought that parties tended to split up and divide the people. In his farewell address Washington said:
Early fear of parties
“ There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true and in governments of a monarchical class, patriotism may look with indulgence if not with favor, on the spirit of party. But in those of a popular character, in governments purely elective it is a spirit not to be encouraged."
The Federalist, a series of papers written chiefly by Hamilton and Madison in support of the Constitution, speaks of the “pestilential influence of party animosities.” But it was soon found that while the system of checks and balances might prevent government from doing harm, it made it almost equally difficult for government to do any good.
It soon turned out that there were two great groups