PRICE OF THIS NUMBER: 5 cents a copy, or 40 cents a dozen, by mail postpaid. Published Monthly Price, $1.oo Per Year Vol. 8. June, 1898. No. 6. A yºut Pure Democracy, ſº ADVANTAGES OVER ALL OTHER FORMS OF COV, ERNMENT AND HOW IT CAN BE SECURED BY THE Initiative and Referendum. -- CE - -- - - º THE NEW ERA CO. º º postolice at sºn, onio. º º º sº º * * Notice... In this article the words "republican" and "democratic," except when used in connection with the word "party" are used in the broad, original meaning of the words, and not in the present partisan sense. WEBSTER'S DEFINITIONS DEMocº ACY-Government by the people, a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people Republic-A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people and is exercised by representatives elected by them. - - -- - º - º --- º - - - - - º - - - º º º º - - - - - º º º ſº º º º/ º " º - THE QUESTION Vol. 8. June, 1898. No. 6. A PURE DEMOCRACY. By R. S. Thompson. GOVERNMENT. HE primary object of government is to protect each indi- - T vidual in the undisturbed enjoyment of his natural rights. A secondary object is to conduct certain public affairs, such as the postoffice and the public schools, where the interests of the public can be better served thereby. The secondary object is really included in the first, as the real ground for having these enterprises operated by the gov- ernment is that when such enterprises are conducted by indi- viduals the natural rights of some persons are certain to be in- finged. º FORMS-OF GOVERNMENT. There are three forms of government—despotic, republican and democratic. Despotic.—A despotic government is one in which the laws are enacted by persons who obtain the power by conquest, inheritance, or in some other way than through the will of the people governed. Despotic governments are divided by scholars. into many classes, but the principle is the same in all. Any gov- ernment is “despotic” where the rulers derive their power from any other source than the consent of the people. It makes no º A PURE DEMOCRACY. difference whether the power is obtained by inheritance or by º force or by fraud or deception. A despotic government i º therefore a government of the people by individuals who exer cise power over the people without their consent. º REPUBLICAN.—A republican government is one in which the laws are enacted and the people governed by persons chosen by the people and vested by them with the power to govern. Webster defines a republic as “a state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them.” A republican government is therefore a government of the people by individuals upon whom the people have conferred the right to govern. It makes no difference what the form of government, whether the power to govern is exercised by a single individual or by many, or whether it is divided between different bodies of men elected by the people. If the rulers are chosen by the people, it is in principle a republican form of government. If the people of a state were to elect one man and give him absolute power, that would still be in principle a republican gov- ernment, because the ruler received his power from the people. The difference between a despotić and republican govern- ment is not in the form, or in the number of persons engaged in governing, but in the source from which those who exercise the power derive the power. If it is from the people, it is a repub- lican government; if it is from any other source, it is a despotic government. DEMocratic.—A democratic government is one in which the governing power is exercised by the people themselves, and not by persons who have seized the power, nor by representatives to whom it has been delegated. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 3. . * In nearly all actual governments these different forms are more or less combined. In nearly all despotic governments some part of the governing power belongs to bodies chosen more or less directly by the people. In most republics some of the power is exercised by persons whose choice is so far removed from the people that they cannot be properly called “representatives.” We do not know of any country at the present time which has a purely democratic gov- ernment. The nearest approach to it is Switzerland, which is called a republic, but which is becoming a democracy. SOURCE OF POWER. It is a self-evident fact that the only just source of power in governmentis the people who are governed. This is self-evident because there is no other possible source from which the power can come. No man can possibly have any natural right to gov- ern any other man. All men were created with the same rights, and therefore no man could have any right over any other man. o man) could possibly have the right to command some other man to obey, for if he could, the other man would have the same right to command obedience, which would be absurd. Clearly, therefore, each man has the right to govern himself, but no man has any right to govern any other man, further than to say that the other man shall not infringe his rights. Each man has the right to govern himself and to prevent any other man from in- individuals in a community, the same rights belong to the com- - - - - - - - which is only a collection of individuals. therefore have the right to govern themselves, and no other power has the right to govern them. N munit erfering with his rights. But as these rights belong to all the terfering is rights g 2 º * @…º.º. ººcy Despotic governments, are therefore clearly wrong in prin- ciple. Whenever one man or any number of men attempt to govern others without their consent they commit a crime against human rights, and if the people consent to such government, they consent to crime. - Resistance to tyranny is, therefore, not only a right, but a duty, and no person is under any moral obligation to obey º commands of a despotic government. If it would be wrong for one individual to attempt to gov- ern another without his consent, it is no less wrong for a number of individuals calling themselves a government to do so. If it would be craven and cowardly for one man to allow another to control his actions, it is no less craven and cowardly for a large number of men constituting a community to allow certain other men calling themselves a government to control their actions, unless they have first, for good reasons, given their consent. But it is also evident that any power which men possess they may rightfully delegate to some one else, for a right which a man could not confer on another would not be a right. There- fore, where men voluntarily delegate to others the right to rule over them, there is no wrong committed either by those who delegate the right or by those who exercise it. Republican and democratic governments are therefore both right as far as the principle is concerned, and the choice between them rests on the question, Which best accomplishes the objects of government—the protection of the people in the enjoyment of their rights? DEVELOPMENT OF FIREE GOVERNMENT. The development of free government has been by gradual A PURE DEMOCRACY. 5 advances made by the continued resistance of men to tyranny. Men in making a change of government do not usually study out some plan that would be ideally perfect and theoretically correct. They usually continue the form under which they have been living, merely making such changes as seem necessary to overcome intolerable evils. They do not usually change a form of government simply because it is wrong in principle. They must suffer from the effects of the wrong before they will exert themselves to change the system which makes the wrong possible. They do not usually contend for their rights simply because they are their rights. They must feel the necessity for the pos- session of those rights in order to protect themselves from recog- nized evils. Consequently nearly all forms of government contain someº. remnants of former conditions. Free government has been an evolution, and the evolution is not yet complete in any country on the earth. The first struggle was against unjust and cruel rulers who governed the people for their own profit and pleasure, and re- gardless of the public welfare. As the struggle was against unjust rulers rather than for the purpose of establishing an ideally perfect form of government, the first efforts for freedom generally consisted of an attempt to dethrone one king and en- throne another, or to secure from the king in power some relief from unjust laws. | It was soon found that these measures were insufficient to accomplish the end desired. The new ruler, being independent | of the people, often proved to be even a greater tyrant than the old one had been, and rights granted were soon disregarded be- 6 A PURE DEMOCRACY. cause the people had no power to compel compliance with the agreement made. The next step of the people in the struggle for civil liberty was to get the right to select their own rulers, and to have the term of office short, so that, if a ruler proved bad, the people would not have to suffer under him very long, and so that the fear that he might not be re-elected would secure good behavior in office. This was as far as the struggle for freedom had gone in any country at the time this country threw off the yoke of Great Britain and founded a government which the founders believed was very nearly perfection. At the time this government was established but little was known of the principles of a pure democracy. Those who framed the government did not believe that the people were able to govern themselves. They did not intend that the people should have the right to determine what laws should be enacted. The highest idea they had of liberty º º: º: ºº: their º Even that privilege was closely guarded, lest the ignorance and incompetence of the people should work injury. Only the lower house of congress could be chosen by the people directly. The members of the upper house had to be chosen by the state legislatures, whose members it was supposed would be wiser than the people. The president was not to be chosen by the people, but by a body of electors who were expected to assemble, and after due deliberation and consultation decide upon the man best fitted to fill that high and exalted position. Our form of government never contemplated that the people should have any voice whatever in the selection of a chief mag- istrate, or that they should even know who he was to be until A PURE DEMOCRACY. 7 after the electoral college had assembled and selected the man who should rule over them. Thus we see that the American government, as now consti- tuted, was strictly built along the republican lines, with a con- siderable admixture of old-world ideas. It was never intended to be a democracy. It was not the intention that the people should even indirectly select all their own rulers. It was a compromise between the growing republican ideas of the new world and the despotic and monarchical ideas of the old. The framers of the government had before them in the Declaration of Independence a text-book of a true democracy, but the principles laid down in that document were so far ahead of the times that few of them were able to comprehend them except as beautiful ideals and expressions of lofty sentiments. Imbued as the founders of the republic were with the idea that the people were not able to govern themselves, to make their own laws, or even to select their highest officials, it does not seem to have occurred to them that if the people themselves were incompetent to do these things they were equally incom- petent to select those persons who should do them. They did not seem to see the absurdity of the idea that if the people were incompetent to select a president they were yet competent to select a body of electors who would wisely select a president. They did not seem to see the absurdity of the idea that if the people were incompetent to elect a senator they were still competent to elect a legislature which would be able to elect a senator. The men who framed the constitution and founded the government were undoubtedly men of ability and education and possessed logical minds, but it was impossible for them to reach out to the purely ideal in government, and so they framed the new º A PURE DEMOCRACY. - government with as little departure as possible from the govern- ments of the old world with which they were familiar, the dominant idea being to allow the people a measure of choice in regard to who should be their rulers, and the idea that the people should themselves be the rulers was practically ignored. THE ORIGIN OF POLITICAL PARTIES. Political parties in the United States were the outgrowth of the desire on the part of the people to have a more direct voice in the selection of their highest officials, and in regard to the kind of legislation that was to be enacted. Under the original plan, legislation was strictly the business of the members of the legislature, and there was no provision whatever for even an instruction from the people as to the kind of legislation they desired. The only idea the framers of the republic seem to have had on that line was through the right of petition, which was jealously guarded, but experience soon demonstrated that petitions were but little more effective with the elected legislators than with the hereditary ones, and that it was practically impossible, especially as the population increased, to secure a petition which would really give the legislators any correct information as to the demands of the people. Out of these conditions grew political organization. As the people could not vote for president, parties were organized, and these parties at their conventions nominated candidates for president, who could not be voted for by the people, but the nominations served as instructions to the members of the elec- toral college. An unwritten law grew up that the electors nominated by any party were compelled to select, as president, the man nominated by the national convention of that party. This unwritten law has become almost as strong as the constitu- A PURE DEMOCRACY. 9 tion and has practically accomplished the very thing which the constitution was designed to prevent. The president is now to a certain extent elected by the people, though the division of the electoral college among the states very often causes the election of a man who is the choice of but a minority of the people. But the party development was pushed further. The people not only wished to have a voice in the selection of presi- dent, but they also wished to have controlling power in regard to the legislation that should be enacted by the legislators they elected. This was partially accomplished by the adoption of party platforms, and another unwritten law was established that the legislators elected as the candidates of a political party must enact legislation on the lines laid down in the party platform. The object of party organization, of party nominations and of party platforms was, therefore, to secure to the people directly a voice in both the selection of officers and legislation to be enacted. It aimed to introduce an element of democracy into a government which was intended to be republican. It was an attempt to accomplish by voluntary organization that which the constitution was designed to prevent. THE FAILURE OF PARTY ORGANIZATION-- But while party organization was thus designed to secure a more democratic form of government, the result of the system has not been satisfactory, nor has it to any large extent accom- plished the purposes intended. There were inherent difficulties in making a success of this plan to accomplish without the law that which the law was designed to prevent. Since the organization of parties there has been no instance IO A pure democracy. where presidential electors have failed to cast their vote for the nominee of the party. But beyond this the party control of its candidates has proved a failure. The history of the political parties in America has been one long record of violations of the trust confided to them. Members of state legislatures and of congress have again and again refused to support measures advo- cated in the platform on which they were elected, and have supported and secured the adoption of measures which were specifically opposed in the platform on which they were nomi- nated. This has become so universal and so notorious that it is a common phrase in political circles that a party platform is like the platform to a railway coach, intended to get in on and not to stand on. Many clear illustrations of this have occurred in our national politics within the last few years. The congress which was elected in 1876 was elected largely on the issue of the restoration of the coinage of silver on the oasis prevailing prior to 1873. But that congress, after a long struggle, refused to pass a free coinage bill and instead enacted the Bland-Allison law, which was a compromise with the opponents of free coinage. The congress elected in 1888 was elected on platforms de- claring strongly for the restoration of silver; instead of enacting a free coinage law it passed the Sherman compromise. The congress elected in 1892 was elected on platforms de- claring for a larger use of silver and which were understood, and intended to be understood, as free coinage platforms; but that congress voted down every proposition for the coinage of silver in any quantity, on any plan, at any ratio, and repealed the only clause of a law providing for the increased use of silver as money. A PURE DEMOCRACY. I The majority in that congress was also elected on a plat- form declaring that protection was robbery and tarif should be for revenue only. But in constructing a tariff law it did so strictly on the lines of protection and the first act of the commit. tee was to send for the representatives of the various protected industries and request them to present to the committee a state- ment of how much protection their various industries required. The congress elected in 1896 was elected on a platform de- claring for bimetallism by international agreement and pledging the representatives of the party to promote such an agreement. But as soon as the first insincere and half-hearted steps were taken towards securing this international agreement a large por tion of the press of the party lifted up its voice in condemnation, and declared that the clause in the platform pledging the party to promote the free coinage of silver through international agree- ment was simply one of those things which are put into the platform to “catch votes.” No honest attempt was made to secure the international agreement, and after a few perfunctory efforts the whole matter was dropped. The same congress was elected on a platform declaring strongly for Cuban independence, but the subject was ignored for a year. The first message of the president declared strongly against recognition of either independence or belligerency, and in the struggle in congress on that question the party which had pledged itself in its platform to Cuban independence took the strongest ground in opposition, and finally succeeded in defeating every resolution looking to that end. Illustrations of this fact might be multiplied without end. But the fact itself has become so well known that the majority of the voters have lost all confidence in the declarations of political parties as made in their platforms. 12 A pure democracy THE CAUSE OF FAILURE. The cause of this failure is easily discovered. After a mem- ber of the legislature is elected, under the constitution the voter has no power over him. The member of the legislature can do exactly as he pleases and the voters can neither call him to account nor undo his action. The legislator is a ruler with power as completely unlimited as the ruler of a despotic kingdom. The only recourse for the voters, where representatives do not fill the offices to the satisfaction of the people, is to fail to re-elect them at the next election. This penalty, however, has proved to be entirely insufficient. In the growth of the country immense interests have arisen which can be made more or less profitable to an enormous extent . by legislation. Those concerned in these interests can well afford to spend enormous sums of money in securing the legisla- tion which will still further increase their profits. The member of the legislature is, therefore, whenever any of these measures are up for settlement, put under a tremendous pressure of temp- tation. If he fulfills the desires of his constituents, he may be re-elected, but a second term of office will pay him but a very small per cent of what he could secure from interested parties by legislating according to their interests. In the nature of things it follows that many members of the legislature yield un- der the pressure that is brought and no man can tell in advance what he or any one else will do under such circumstances. The consequence of this has been that for years legislation has been in the interest of those who could furnish the most money, and the voice of the people, so far as it was expressed in party plat- forms, has largely been forgotten when the time arrived for making the laws. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 13 This is one of the causes which has made the party system a failure as far as securing the advantages of a democratic system under a republican form of government. But there was another reason why the party system proved a failure. It would have proved a failure even if every legislator had been an absolutely pure and incorruptible man. The difficulty is due to the fact that with the growth of a nation the questions which have to be settled are multiplied. If but a single question had to be settled at one time, and if the representatives of the people could be depended upon to carry out their platform pledges, the party system might fairly ac- complish the end desired. Under those conditions one party could declare for a certain measure, the other party declare against that measure, and all who favored the measure could cast their votes for the party advocating it, and all who opposed the measure could cast their votes for the party opposing it. In that case the voters would, though indirectly, register their exact will upon that particular issue at the ballot box, and if the members elected could be depended on to fulfill their platform pledges, the will of the people would be enacted into law. But as soon as there are two or more questions in which some or all of the people are interested, the party system of se- curing a popular vote upon the matters of legislation is necessar- ily a failure. Where there are two or more questions each party must either take a position on each question or take a position on one or more and remain silent on one or more. Now it is impossible for any party to form a combination of questions which will exactly meet the combination of views among any large number of the people. If, asis often the case, a dozen questions are up for settlement, and in which the people are interested, it is practically impossi- 14. A PURE DEMOCRACY. ble for any party to correctly represent the views of more than a small per cent of the voters. To make this more plain we will illustrate it on the supposition that there are only four questions up for settlement, which we will call A, B, C and D. Suppose that party No. 1 declares in favor of all these measures and party No. 2 declares against all these measures. voter No. 1 favors all these measures and therefore can ex- press his will by voting with party No. 1. Voter No. 2 opposes all these measures and therefore can express his sentiments by voting with party No. 2. Voter No. 3 favors proposition A and opposes B, C and D. He cannot express his sentiments by voting with either of the parties, but must either vote against one thing he does not favor or else for three things he opposes. Voter No. 4 favors the propositions A and B and opposes C and D. He cannot express his views at the polls. Voter No. 5 favors A, B and C and opposes D. He cannot express his views at the polls. Voter No. 6 opposes A and favors B, C and D. He cannot express his views at the polls. Voter No 7 favors A and C, but opposes B and D. He cannot express his opinions at the polls. These illustrations could be carried on to great length, but to go through all the combinations which are possible, and which actually exist in fact, would take up too much space. This simply shows that with only four questions at issue and two parties in the field it is quite probable that but a very small per cent of the people can really express their views upon these questions by voting the ticket of either of the parties. When the number of issues increases the number of different combina- tions becomes almost endless. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 15 To meet this difficulty new parties are started, and the last few years have been prolific in the organization of new political parties. But it is evident that the organization of new parties will not meet the case; with the increased number of issues, it would become necessary to have almost as many different parties as there are voters in the country. To overcome this difficulty, parties have frequently advocated the adoption of a single issue and having that issue alone settled at one election. If this could be done, it would of course make it possible for the people to register their votes on that issue. They could (provided their elected representatives could be re- lied upon) decide that issue one way or the other at a single election. But the difficulty in the operation of this plan is that in order to make it effective the people must leave all other questions unsettled while this question is being settled. In order to do this the whole people must be convinced that some one question is of so much greater importance than any other question that they can properly leave all other questions unsettled while this one is being settled. But this is impossible. A large proportion of the voters are firmly convinced that some one question is of such vital importance that all other questions may properly be laid aside until this one question is settled. But the trouble is that the people do not agree as to which is the one question. John Doe is convinced that the free coinage of silver is the matter of most importance and that all other questions should be laid aside until that issue is settled. If John Doe could get all men to agree with him in this, a settlement might be secured under our present system. But Richard Roe is equally convinced that the tariff ques- tion is the most important one, for which other questions must 16 A PURE DEMOCRACY. give way. You cannot convince Richard Roe that the tariff question is less important than the money question, nor can you convince John Doe that the money question is less important than the tariff question. - Another voter is equally convinced that the land question is all-important, yet another is fully satisfied that the transporta- tion question must be settled before any other measure can be taken up, and still another is amazed that anyone should doubt that the prohibition, question is the dominant issue in American politics. And so the matter goes without end, and every attempt to induce the people to abandon all other issues and settle one has been a failure, not because the individual voters did not approve of that plan, but because the individual voters could not be induced to agree as to which of the questions should be made the one to be settled at the ballot box. There is nothing surprising in the failure of all attempts to secure a settlement of public questions by popular vote under our present system of government. The system was not con- tructed for that purpose. It was constructed with the idea and intention that the members of the legislatures should decide these questions for the people, who were not supposed to be competent to pass judgment on matters of legislation. For more than sixty years the people have been trying to do, under our present form of government, the very thing which the present form of government was constructed to prevent. They have been trying to get the advantages of a democratic system under a republican system. They have been trying to secure govern- ment by the people under a system which was expressly intended to provide government by representatives. Under our present representative system of government, A PURE DEMOCRACY. 17 with political party organizations for the purpose of accomplish- ing that which the form of government intended to prevent, it is entirely possible for a party to be successful with a platform containing a number of planks, though a majority of the people were opposed to every plank in the platform and only a mi- nority favor any one of these planks. To illustrate: Suppose party No. 1 stands for Free silver, Free trade, Prohibition. Party No. 2 stands for Gold standard, Protective tariff, License. Now suppose there are four voters, A, B, C and D. The principle would work out the same if it were four thousand or four million, but it is easier to see the working in small numbers: A, B and C favor free silver. B, C and D favor free trade. D., C and A favor prohibition. D alone favors gold standard. A alone favors protective tariff. B alone favors license. There is a majority of 3 to 1 in favor of each principle of party No. 1. A votes for party No. 2 because he is so strongly in favor of protective tariff that he is willing to sacrifice free silver and prohibition to get it. B votes for party No. 2 because he is so much in favor of license that he is willing to sacrifice free silver and free trade to get it. 18 A PURE DEMOCRACY. D votes for party No. 2 because he is so much in favor of the gold standard that he is willing to sacrifice free trade and prohibition to get it. C votes for party No. 1. Party No. 1 will be defeated by a vote of 3 to 1, though each of the principles for which it stood was favored by three- fourths of all the voters. And party No. 2 goes into power, and if the members of the legislature are true to their platform pledges, they will enact legislation in favor of the gold standard, protective tarif and license, and yet this legislation will be in opposition to the judg- ment of three-fourths of the people. Of course this exact combination might never occur, but it is clear that it is possible. It is practically certain that in no election can the result fairly represent the will of the people on all the questions before them, and it is safe to say that in very few elections does the result reflect the will of the people on all the questions before them. It has been the custom for years past to talk about this as a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but the actual fact is that it is a government of the people by repre- sentatives, and that as far as determining what the acts of gov- ernment shall be the people have no voice at all. Neither was it the intention of the framers of our government that the people should have a voice. It was not supposed that they were com- petent to act in such matters. It has been the custom for many years to lay the blame of our bad legislation upon the people and to say that the people got what they voted for, and if they did not want this, that or the other, they should not have voted for it. But the actual fact is that under our form of government A PURE DEMOCRACY. I9 there is no provision whatever made for the people to vote for or against any kind of legislation. They can only so vote by a most indirect method and a method which has proved itself to be totally inefficient in accomplishing the end. We have seen, therefore, that our system of government is republican, which does not provide for government by the people. We have seen that government by the people necessitates a democratic form of government. The question therefore is, Which is the better form of government, republican or democratic? THE DISADVANTAGES OF REPUBLICAN For M OF GOVERNMENT. First. It does not provide for a government by the people. While the people undoubtedly have the right to delegate the power to govern to other persons, yet it does not follow that it is desirable that they should do so. The people, as we have already seen, are the only source of just power in government. They should not delegate that power to other persons to be exercised for them without most excellent reasons. These rea- sons cannot be furnished. The theory was that the people would be able to select the wisest men, the truest and most patriotic, and that they could safely entrust in their hands the responsible matter of government. This might be possible in a limited community, but with a population of seventy million, with election districts often containing from fifty to five million voters, it is quite impossible that any large number of the people can have any personal knowledge of the character or ability of the men whom they select to make or execute the laws for them. There is therefore no probability that they will be able to select the 2O A PURE DEMOCRACY. wisest, truest and most patriotic men in each election district. Experience has proved that members of legislatures and mem- bers of congress are not, as a rule, superior in wisdom, intelli- gence or honesty to the average mass of the people. This being the case, there can be no advantage whatever derived from the plan of selecting a few out of the many and giving to that few the power to rule over the many. Second. A republican form of government has been found to be a prolific source of political corruption. With our tremen- dous industrial interests and the tremendous opportunities for making immense fortunes through the manipulation of legisla- tion, there is a great temptation to use corrupt methods to secure the election of subservient legislators or to control the action of legislators who have already been elected. Corporations, monopolies and the liquor interest have all found that they could well afford to spend great sums in securing suitable legislation. The consequence has been that in nearly every legislative body men who have had money, and have not scrupled to use it for corrupt purposes, have been able to secure whatever legislation they desired, and the most iniquitous laws, the most shameful acts of injustice and wrong have been committed by legislators who were supposed to be elected to look after the best interests of the people. The system of electing legislators and giving them unlimited power is inherently bad and calculated to lead to corruption. What would be thought of a business man who would engage an employe and say to that employe: “You shall take this position, shall determine your own salary, shall do just as you please, and I relieve you from all responsibility for any acts you may commit”? Yet this is exactly what the people do when they elect a legislator. He holds his position for the agreed time, no matter whether he is true or false to A PURE DEMOCRACY. 2 . those who employ him. He determines his own salary; his acts cannot be reviewed or changed by the people. He is in fact entirely independent of them and is a sovereign ruler, as abso- lute in his power as the czar of Russia or the emperor of China. Human nature is not so constructed that it is safe to put so much power into the hands of any man, especially when such enormous interests are at stake. Third. Under a republican form of government, owing to the possibility of corruption, it has been found by experience that the interests of the people are set aside, and the interests of those who can command the money to corrupt legislators are taken care of. The welfare of the people is not considered in legislation. Legislators enact laws according to their pecuniary interests rather than for the interest of the mass of the people. Under this system has grown up our iniquitous legislation which has filled the country with millionaire monopolists and pauper producers, which has transferred the wealth of the nation from the hands of those who produced it to the hands of those who were able to manipulate legislatures. Under this system corrup- tion has extended through all branches of the government until it is considered almost a disgrace to be in politics, and the fact that a man holds a public office is regarded as just grounds for suspicion concerning the honesty of his character. This corrup- tion at the very fountain head has not only caused bad govern- ment, bad laws and bad execution of laws, but its influence has penetrated the whole country, corrupting business, society and church. - Fourth. Even where a legislator is perfectly honest and sincerely desirous of carrying out the wishes of his constituents, it is absolutely impossible under a republican form of govern- ment for the legislator to have any clear idea what the wishes of 22 A PURE DEMOCRACY. his constituents are on each question which must come before him for settlement. If a man is elected on a platform which de- clares for a dozen different issues, he may safely conclude that a large proportion of those who voted for him were opposed to some of the planks in its platform. As has already been shown, it is quite possible that a majority of all who voted for him were opposed to each plank in his platform. He cannot know how the individual voter stood in regard to each question, and even though he honestly tries to fulfill the wishes of his constituents he is unable to do so. If he is elected on a platform declaring for but a single issue he will of course know the views of his constituents on that particular issue, but he will be totally in the dark in regard to their views on every other question on which he must act. These, and many other reasons which we cannot discuss in detail, have demonstated the fact that under a republican form of government at the present time the will of the people is thwarted, corruption prevails, and reform is practically impos- sible. A Dºv ANTAGES OF A DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. The advantages of a democratic system of government are: First. That the people are able to legislate as they please on each separate issue and that therefore the will of the people becomes the law of the land. Second. Corruption in politics will be largely removed. Legislators no longer having unlimited power, monopolies and corporations cannot afford to spend money to corrupt them. While no form of government will be perfect as long as men are imperfect, yet it is clear that it is much easier and much cheaper to purchase a few members of a legislature than to purchase or A PURE DEMOCRACY. 23 deceive the whole people. Practically, it would be impossible for any corruptionist to purchase the votes of a majority of the people. Possibly they might purchase some and secure others by deception, so that the legislation enacted by the whole people would not always be wise or just. But the people would have in their hands the power to change this whenever they dis- covered that they had been deceived or had blundered. If at one election the people were deceived into adopting a law that was against their best interests, as soon as the operation of the law was discovered they would be able to change the law and enact a different one. Third. Under a democratic form of government the people would have the opportunity to vote upon each measure sepa- rately and every man would practically make a political plat- form for himself. If there were a dozen issues before the people, each voter could vote as he pleased, for or against each of the dozen issues. He would not have to vote for one to which he was opposed in order to vote for another which he favored. Neither would he have to vote against a measure which he fa- vored in order to vote against a measure to which he was op- posed. The voter would be able to exercise his sovereignty directly and definitely in regard to each individual question. Fourth. It would be possible to secure for each measure the votes of all persons who favored that measure, regardless of their views upon any other question. At the present time and under a republican system this is an impossibility, as has already been shown, but under a purely democratic government every person who favored any particular measure could vote for that measure regardless of his views on any other or on all other questions, and consequently it would be possible to secure any reform desired just as soon as a major- 24 A PURE DEMOCRACY. ity of the voters of the country were convinced that such a re- form was desirable. Fifth. Under a democratic form of government the people, being directly responsible for the legislation, will take much more interest in studying political questions, will act with much more wisdom and will be far less likely to be carried away by the power of party prejudice. Sixth. Under a purely democratic form of government, all legislation emanating directly from the people, there will be a greater recognition of the authority of law, more respect for government and less difficulty in enforcing legislation. Every man will feel that the law was passed by the whole people and that therefore his loyalty to the country requires obedience to the law. HOW TO SECURE A PURE DEMOCRACY. In the New England states there still exists the old town meeting system. Under this system all the voters in a township assemble at stated periods at some public place and, acting as a body, enact such local legislation as is necessary and select the officers to carry out this legislation. This system, conducted on a small scale in districts of limited size, has been a success. It has secured for these sections, where it is in existence, the best and purest local government ever found on the face of the earth. It is a pure democracy. Of course such a system is only practicable in very limited districts. It would be quite impossible for all the voters in an ordinary county to assemble and discuss and vote upon each measure required for the county government. When the governmental district was enlarged, the impossibility would be still more obvious. Any one can recognize the fact that it would A PURE DEMOCRACY. 25 be impossible for the twelve hundred thousand voters in Ohio to assemble in one place and decide what laws should be passed and how they should be enforced. Physical difficulties would make the town meeting system of New England utterly imprac- tical as applied to the government of larger communities. To attain the same end, a purely democratic government in a practical manner, there has been devised and is now in more or less complete operation in Switzerland and in some other coun- tries a system known as DIRECT LEGISLATION by means of the initiative and referendum. This system is simple, practical, successful and meets every end sought by the establishment of a democratic form of government. The general form of the system is as follows: Public officials are elected as at present. There are munici- pal councils, county boards, state legislatures, governors, con- gress and president. These officials are elected the same as under our present system. But these officials are deprived of the unlimited power which they now exercise. THE INITIATIve.—If a legislature under this system fails to enact a measure which is desired by a number of the people, they have the right to submit to their legislature a petition signed by a specified per cent of the total number of voters, requesting that such a law be submitted to the people for a vote. This pe. tition has the power of command and the legislature has no choice in the matter, but is compelled to comply, and submit such a law to a vote of the entire people either at the next regu. lar election or at a special election if the matter is one of suffi- cient immediate importance to demand such action. 26 A PURE DEMOCRACY. The people vote upon the question so submitted exactly as they now do upon an amendment to the constitution. If a ma- jority of the votes cast on this question are in favor of the meas- ure, it is thereby enacted into law without any further action on the part of the legislature. This is called the initiative because under this the people have the right to initiate or begin legislation. REFERENDuM.–Under the system of direct legislation, the legislature will proceed to enact such laws as the members deem proper, just as they do at the present time, but no law so enacted (except sometimes certain classes which are called emergency measures) can become operative for a certain period. This pe. riod is usually about sixty days. If during this time there is no objection to the law, it goes into operation and is binding and in force until repealed. But if during this period of suspended operation any of the people object to the law, they can present a petition signed by a certain percentage of the total number of voters, and requesting that such law shall, before it goes in oper- ation, be submitted to the people for a vote. The presentation of this petition properly signed suspends the operation of the law until after an election can be held, and compels the submis- sion of the law to a popular vote the same as under the initiative. If at the election the law receives a majority of the votes cast on the question, it goes into effect without further de- lay. If it fails to receive a majority of the votes cast it is re- jected and is void. This is the whole system known as the initiative and refer- endum. It secures, as will be seen, all the advantages of the New England town meeting, and is applicable to the govern- ment of a municipality, county, state or nation. Under this sys- tem the people can not only compel the enactment of any law A PURE DEMOCRACY. 27 they desire, but they can also reject any law to which they are opposed. It makes the people the governing body, the legisla- ture their servants, elected not to do their own will, but the will of the people who elected them. The remarkable thing about this system is its extreme sim- plicity. It would require but little change in our present form of government to put it into operation. It would require no particular change in our election laws. It would require but little change in the form of ballot. Under this system the various laws would be named on the official ballot, and each voter would vote yes or no on each law that was submitted. EVERY MAN HIS OWN PLATFORM MAKER. We have seen that under our present system we have at- tempted through party organizations to secure popular rule un- der a form of government intended to prevent it, and the voters in consequence have to accept a platform as provided for them by some political convention. Supposing that there were but four questions at issue, the number of combinations possible in the voters’ minds would be so large that it would be impossible for there to be a sufficient number of political parties in the field, so that each voter could find a party which presented exactly his views on each question. Consequently under the present system but a small percentage of the voters, even with only four issues before the people, could really express their views by voting for a party platform. But under direct legislation each voter could express his views exactly, as he would make a platform for him- self when he went to the polls. Suppose for instance that there were but four questions and that these were : 28 A PURE DEMOCRACY. Free Silver, Government Ownership of Monopolies, Prohibition, Single Tax. These would be printed on the ballot in order and the voter could mark “yes” or “no" for each one. Voter. A could mark his ballot “yes” for each of the propo- sitions, and thus vote a platform exactly in accordance with his views. Voter B could mark his ballot “no’’ for each of the four propositions and thus vote a platform exactly in accordance with his views. Voter CCould vote “yes” on free silver and “no" on each of the other propositions, and vote a platform in accordance with his views. It is not necessary to carry this on further, as the reader can see how each voter could thus make a platform in accord- ance with his own opinion on every issue before the people, whether the number of questions was one or a score. Thus would be accomplished perfectly what we are now trying to accomplish by party organization, but which that plan has been unable to accomplish, because our system is not fitted for it. POSSIBILITY OF REFORM. Under our present system experience has shown that it is practically impossible to secure any real reform in legislation. The first reason for this is, as has already been shown, the power of money to corrupt the members of the legislatures so that, no matter how the people may vote, the thing they vote for is not accomplished. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 29 But the second, and perhaps a no less important reason, is the fact that under our present system it is impossible to secure for any reform measure the votes of all who favor that particu- lar measure because party platforms compel men to vote for things they do not want in order to get a chance to vote for those which they want, and to vote against things they do want in order to vote against things they do not want. Take for instance the campaign of 1896. It is entirely probable that a large majority of all who voted at that election were in favor of free silver, yet the political parties which advo- cated that doctrine did not all put together receive as many votes as one party which opposed it; and it is quite probable that some persons voted for free silver platforms though opposed to that measure, but who were more opposed to the Republican party. In securing votes for free silver on the party method there were the following difficulties: There were many men who favored free silver, but who were opposed to some other plank in the platform and whose opposition to such other plank was greater than their desire for free silver. They therefore voted the Republican ticket not- withstanding that they were opposed to the Republican position on the money question. Others voted the Republican ticket simply because they had been trained from childhood to believe that the Democratic party was altogether bad, and they would have voted against the Democratic party even if they had favored every plank in its platform and opposed every plank in the Republican platform. Hence the three forces—opposition to some plank or planks in the Democratic platform, advocacy of some plank or planks in the Republican platform, and party prejudice-caused hun- 30 A PURE DEMOCRACY. dreds of thousands of men who really favored free silver to vote against it, or at least to vote against parties which stood for free silver. Another illustration of this fact is found in the campaign for a prohibitory amendment in Ohio in 1883. In that year two amendments to the constitution were submitted. One of these amendments provided for prohibition, the other for regulation under a tax. The Republican party in its platform declared in favor of the system of regulation by a tax. At the election that year the prohibitory amendment received 323, 189 votes, while the amendment favored by the Republican party received but 98,000 votes. This undoubtedly was a fair indication of the views of the voters in regard to this particular question. But at that election the Republican ticket (whose platform declared for the tax amendment) received 347,164 votes, while the Pro- hibition ticket, whose platform declared for the prohibition amendment, received but 8,362 votes. It was evident that as far as the views of the voters were concerned on this one question, there was a majority of more than three to one in favor of the position of the Prohibition party platform as against the position of the Republican party platform, and yet more than forty votes were cast for the Republican platform for every vote cast for the Prohibition platform. The reason for this was very simple. The voters did not, in selecting their party ticket, decide on this particular ques- tion. A majority of those who voted the Republican ticket probably favored the position of the Prohibition party on the liquor question, but they voted the Republican ticket either be- cause they favored the position of the Republican party on some other question or questions, or because they were afraid that A PURE DEMOCRACY. 3. they would let the Democrats in, or because of party prejudice, or for other personal reasons. The party votes therefore com- pletely failed to represent the views of the voters on this partic- ular question. It is probable that party votes equally failed to represent the views of the voters on other questions. The consequence is that no single reform has any fair chance to succeed through party methods. Neither is it fair to charge the responsibility of this on the parties or the party man- agers. The failure is due to the fact that our form of govern- ment was not intended to give the voter any opportunity to ex- press his sentiments relative to legislation, and the party method, which has been devised to overcome this difficulty, is not able to overcome it. The only way is to change the form of government. Under direct legislation every man who desires free silver can vote for free silver and will vote for it without reference to his views on the tariff, on prohibition, on government ownership of monopolies, government by injunction or on any of these other questions. The man who favors free trade and free silver can vote for free silver, and the man who favors high protection and free silver can also vote for free silver, and so all who desire free silver will be able to vote for it regardless of their views on other questions, and it will therefore be possible for the advocates of each separate measure to “get together” in regard to that measure, no matter how widely they may be separated in regard to other measures. There will be scores of different combina- tions among voters, or rather among the votes cast. At the present time these combinations are limited to the number of parties and therefore totally fail to secure for each measure the number of votes of those who favor that measure. Advocates of free silver are kept apart by their divergent 32 A PURE DEMOCRACY. views in regard to tariff, prohibition, woman suffrage and other questions. Advocates of free trade are kept apart by their divergent views in regard to free silver, woman suffrage, prohibition and other questions. Advocates of prohibition are kept apart by their divergent views in regard to tariff, free silver, woman suffrage and other questions. Consequently under our present system the advocates of each reform are divided up into a multitude of warring factors, fighting each other on other questions and compelled by the party method to fight each other on the question on which they are agreed in order to fight each other on the questions on which they are disagreed. Under direct legislation the advocates of any one measure could act unitedly on that particular measure, no matter how bitterly they might fight each other on any or every other In easure. To illustrate: A, B, C and D could all unite in voting for free silver. A and B could fight C and D on the tarif question. A and D could fight Band C on the prohibition question. A and C could fight B and D on the suffrage question, and so on through all the combinations. Direct legislation offers the only possible opportunity for all the advocates of any measure to get together in regard to that measure. It does this because it does not compel them, in order to support that measure, to “get together” in regard to other measures, or to abandon other measures which they favor. Consequently, under direct legislation, as soon as any par- ticular reform secured the approval of a majority of the voters interested in that question, that reform could be accomplished. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 33 OBJECTIONS TO DIRECT LEGISLATION. The first objection usually urged is that the people are not competent to govern themselves, that they have neither the in- telligence nor ability to know what laws ought to be enacted. This objection is, however, illogical. The laws must be enacted by “people.” The question is not whether they shall be enacted by “people,” but whether they shall be enacted by a few of the people or by all of the people. We have already seen that there is no reasonable ground to suppose that the persons elected to enact the laws will be superior to the average of the whole of the people, either intellectually or morally. Experi- ence has shown that they are not usually quite up to the average. If they are competent to legislate, the people, therefore, must be competent. If the people are incompetent, then the legislators, who are in no way superior to the average of the people, must be equally incompetent, and nothing will be gained by entrusting the matter to the legislators. - But further, this argument defeats itself. If the people are incompetent to decide what laws should be enacted, they must be equally incompetent to select lawmakers. To claim that the people are incompetent to decide on laws, but are competent to select lawmakers, is a self-evident absurdity. - Besides, the system of adopting party platforms is, theoret- ically, for the purpose of giving the people an opportunity to decide what laws shall be adopted. If the people are competent to vote on legislation in a lump, as presented in a party platform, they must be equally competent to vote on each of the laws separately. It is absurd to say that the people are competent to decide between two platforms and not competent to decide between the different measures in the platforms. 34 A PURE DEMOCRACY. The custom of having the people hold conventions and make platforms presupposes the ability of the people to decide what legislation should be enacted. The theory of party organ- ization is that the people in these conventions frame the platforms. It is true that this theory is not carried out in practice, but it is only on this theory that party organization as now conducted can be justified. It is objected that the mass of the people could not take the time to consider the different laws proposed and pass judgment on them. They do take time to consider the different party platforms presented and pass judgment on them. It would take no more time to study the different laws than to study the different platforms. True, the people do not now study the party platforms as they ought to do. But under direct legislation they would study the proposed laws much more carefully than they now do party platforms. Under our present system a great many people are blinded by party idolatry. They favor this measure and oppose that because their party does. If freed from party prejudice, if each measure came down to them for their con- sideration solely on its merits and not as the creed of their be- loved political party, they could pass judgment more intelli- gently than now. It is objected that under direct legislation the number of laws sent down for the people to vote upon would be so great that it would be impossible for most people to read them all. The number of laws sent down would not be very great. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 35 Probably ninety-five per cent of the work of a legislature is purely routine work, concerning which there would be no con- troversy and no demand that the matters be submitted to a vote. Such laws would become operative “by consent” after the expiration of the required time. A few laws of general impor- tance would probably be all that would have to be voted on in any one year. - In Switzerland, where direct legislation is in partial opera- tion, the number of laws voted on each year is not large, but they are the important laws which concern the whole people. At present many vicious laws are quietly slipped through the legislatures. Members who wish to get through some special act agree with other members to help them. “We will vote for your scheme if you will vote for ours,” is the plan on which a great deal of bad legislation is accomplished. Under direct legislation these laws would not be passed at all, and therefore the people would not be called on to vote on them. There would be no object in passing a law which would be sure to occasion a demand for the referendum, and which would be certainly defeated under the referendum. It is objected that under direct legislation the people would be constantly changing the laws and trying rash experiments. Frequent changes in legislation are an evil. We are not entirely free from them under our present system. Witness the adoption of three different tariff laws in the space of seven years. But experience has shown that where the people have to decide the matter for themselves the tendency is rather to con- servatism than to radicalism. Abrupt changes and extreme measures are less probable than under our present system. At 36 A PURE DEMOCRACY. present one monied interest will secure the passage of a law at one session of the legislature. At the next session of the legis- lature perhaps some other monied interest has the upper hand and the law is reversed When the people make the laws they will be careful not to make sudden changes to their own detri- ment. Now, when some corrupt influence desires a law or a change in a law it cares nothing for the welfare of the people. POLITICAL PARTIES UNDER DIRECT LEGISLATION. Would direct legislation do away with political parties? It probably would, before many years, do away with polit- ical parties as they are now constituted. There would doubtless be political organizations for the purpose of nominating candi- dates, and securing their election. For some time men would probably, from old association, cling together in their old organ- izations. But the influence of the political party in legislation would be gone and the political boss would be shorn of his power. Corruptionists would no longer seek to get control of party organizations, for there would be nothing for them to gain by so doing. When the dictum of the party had nothing to do with the legislation enacted, there would be no inducement for the cor- ruptionists and corporations to secure control of the party organ- ization. The Sugar Trust would not contribute a million dollars to a party campaign fund if the congressional candidates of that party were unable to fix up a sugar schedule which would reimburse the Trust for its investment. Contributions to party campaign funds would be immensely reduced and it would be much more difficult for a man to secure A PURE DEMOCRACY. 37 the funds with which to buy a nomination or an election. Political parties would ultimately become mere organiza- *tions for the selection of candidates, and party prejudice and party idolatry would gradually be eliminated. PUBLIC ADVOCA Cº OF MEASURES. Under direct legislation political parties would of course cease to declare for or against the various legislative measures under consideration. It would be absurd for them to make such declarations, for the party, as such, would have nothing to do with the settlement of such questions. There would be no me. cessity for their doing so, for, as we have already seen, the only real ground for the party platform is to accomplish indirectly and imperfectly what would be accomplished directly and per- fectly under direct legislation. As political parties would no longer promulgate platforms, at least on legislative questions, it is evident that such questions would no longer be discussed by party orators on the stump, neither would political parties flood the country with tons of literature advocating or opposing certain measures. The question therefore arises, How would these questions be advocated and how would the people become educated con- cerning them? There would undoubtedly be other organizations formed for this express purpose, but each organization would confine itself to the advocacy of a single measure, and to securing votes for that neasure. There would be free silver organizations seeking to educate the people in favor of free silver and to get them to support free silver on a direct vote. 38 A PURE DEMOCRACY. There would be free trade organizations, working, not to elect candidates, but to get votes for free trade. There would be prohibition organizations, seeking, not to elect candidates, but to get votes for prohibition. There would be “government ownership” organizations, seeking, not to elect candidates, but to educate the people in re- gard to government ownership of natural monopolies, and to get them to vote for that principle on a direct vote. And so on with all the different questions before the people. The division of the people into many different organiza- tions in this way, each organization advocating a single reform, would not defeat the end sought as does the division of the people into many different parties, because the success of one would not mean the defeat of the other. At present if the friends of free silver (for illustration) divide themselves into a half dozen different parties on account of other issues, they vote against each other in regard to free silver and thus defeat themselves. Only one party can win, under our present system, but several different measures could win under direct legislation. Under this system some of the friends of free silver could work in the free trade organization. Some of them could work in the high protection organization. Some of them could work in the prohibition organization, but all of them could work in the free silver organization. - So, some free traders could work in the free silver organiza. tion. Some could work in the gold standard organization. Some could work in the prohibition organization, but all of them could work in the free trade organization. So, some advocates of prohibition could work in the free silver organization, some in the gold standard organization, some A PURE DEMOCRACY. 39 in the free trade organization, some in the protective tariff organ- ization, but all in the prohibition organization. Thus each measure could be supported and advocated by all who favored that measure without interfering with the support of any other measure. But the question may be raised whether organizations of this sort could do as effective work as can be done by the pres- ent party organizations. In some respects possibly not. It would be more difficult to raise immense funds for campaign work. It would not be pos- sible to get men to support such work unless they were really interested in it. Men now very often take up measures in which they do not believe and advocate them most earnestly, because they hope thereby to get elected to office. Of course this sort of support could not be secured under direct legislation, because the advocacy of some popular measure would no longer be necessary in order to get into office. But on the other hand there would be much support that could be secured on this plan which cannot be secured now. It is true that many persons now defend some measure about which they know nothing, simply because their party advocates it. But on the other hand many persons now oppose measures which they would otherwise support, simply because their party opposes them. Under direct legislation we would be much more likely to get the honest, unbiased judgment of the voter. And in this connection it should be remembered that under our present system the average political party is much more likely to take up and advocate some measure which will secure large contributions to its campaign fund than it is to take up a measure which would be for the good of the people, but which would insure it the opposition of the great trusts and corpora- 40 A PURE DEMOCRACY. tions. Therefore, under direct legislation measures in the inter- ests of the people would have a much better chance of getting a fair hearing than they now have. It is sometimes urged that a measure gets a large moral ad- vantage from getting the support and endorsement of a political party. - It must be remembered that this thing works two ways. The endorsement of a measure by a political party prejudices many of the members of that party in its favor, but it also preju- dices a great many in other parties against it. There were many Republicans who favored free silver until the Democratic party came out in favor of it. Then many of them concluded that it must be a bad thing because the other party favored it. And in this connection it must be remembered that reform measures are usually taken up by small parties, whose advocacy of them creates prejudice against them among the members of the larger parties, while these larger parties are usually conser. vative, afraid to take up new issues, and inclined to continue on the old issues which have brought them success before. Thus our present system gives the advantage in the educa. tional work to conservatism and old ideas, and puts progress and improvement at a disadvantage. But aside from the question of which cause would have the greater advantage under direct legislation it is sufficient that the system will give a perfectly fair chance for every issue. That is all that any honest man should ask for the question in which he is interested. The real reformer should seek to win solely on the merits of the measure he advocates, and not through some system which he hopes will give him an advantage over his opponent. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 41 EN FORCE MENT OF LAWS. The question is raised as to how the laws would be enforced under direct legislation. Of course everybody understands that laws are enforced by executive and not by legislative officers. This is the case now, and would be the case under direct legislation. But the ques- tion is based on the well known fact that the effectiveness of all enforcement often depends upon the sentiment of the law en- forcer. If an executive officer is in sympathy with the law he has to enforce, that law will probably be very effectively exe- cuted. If, on the other hand, the executive officer is opposed to the law, he will be liable to nullify it to a greater or less extent by laxity of enforcement. Consequently it has become a political doctrine that it is necessary to elect a ticket nominated by the same party that advocates a law, so that the executive may be in harmony with the legislation which he has to enforce. There is no doubt that there is much truth in this claim under our present system. But the difficulty itself is an out- growth of the same system, and would vanish when the system was changed. The greatest difficulty at the present time in securing good executive officers is the fact that the election of executives is complicated with questions of legislation. A man will be chosen constable or sheriff because he is the nominee of a party representing popular views. If the community is composed of red-hot free traders, the constable or sheriff will be elected be- cause he is a free trader. If the community is largely made up of high protectionists, the constable or sheriff will be elected be- cause he favors high protection. 42 A PURE DEMOCRACY. Under our present party system, by which the people at- tempt to get some voice in legislative matters under a form of government which was designed to prevent them from having any such voice, it has been found a political necessity to drill the voters into voting “straight” party tickets. Wise theorists have argued learnedly that a man should not be elected as constable, or mayor, or sheriff on account of his views in regard to ques- tions of national politics. The people have been urged to en- tirely eliminate legislative questions in the selection of executive officers. This attempt has proved, however, a complete failure. It has been found absolutely necessary to have some connection between executive and legislative officers under the system, and it has been found necessary, in order to carry legislative points through platform pledges, that voters should be trained “to vote the ticket straight.” Consequently, voters are urged to “vote for measures, not men,” and as, under our present system, they can only vote for measures by voting for men, they must practically, or at least nearly always do, vote the entire ticket of a party. The conse- quence has been to eliminate the question of fitness in the selec- tion of nominees. When a party selects a nominee for governor the question as to his fitness to fill that office is very rarely considered. The real question is, Will he, by his personal popularity, help to carry through the measures to which the party is committed? The consequence of this is that as men must vote for measures and men to get the measures desired, the fitness of the man is overlooked. A popular man is often used to carry through a vicious or unpopular measure, and on the other hand a popular measure is often used to carry through an incompetent or un- opular man. A PURE DEMOCRACY. 43 Under direct legislation the question of men and of meas- ures would be separated. Voters would vote for men to fill the various offices, and would vote for each measure by itself. They would not, therefore, have to vote for measures to which they were opposed in order to secure men whom they desired, nor would they have to vote for men whom they regarded as unfit in order to vote for measures which they desired. The free trader would not have to vote for an unfit man for constable because he was a free trader, as the vote for the free trade constable would be no advantage to the free trade law. The protectionist would not have to vote for an unfit man for sheriff because he was a protectionist, because the vote for the protectionist sheriff would be of no advantage in securing the protection law. The free trader would consider the qualities of the candi- dates and vote for the man who would make the best constable, without regard to his opinions on the tariff question. The pro- tectionist would know that he could do all he could for proctec- tion by a direct vote on his ballot for that principle, and would then select the most fit man for sheriff without regard to his opinion on the question of protection. The consequence would be that under direct legislation the offices would be filled by men who were known to be competent to fill the offices. If a majority of the people favored any par- ticular law, a majority would also undoubtedly favor an execu- tive officer who would properly enforce that law. The entangle- ment between men and measures and between one measure and another measure having been removed by direct legislation, the people would select laws that suited themselves, and would se- lect officers who were suited to the laws. There is another reason which would secure much better and more faithful enforcement of the law under direct legisla- 44 A PURE DEMOCRACY. tion than under our present system of indirect government through party organization. Under our existing system, with the complication of issues, the action of an executive officer in regard to any particular law may interfere with the success of some party measure in another locality. For example: If a Republican sheriff in Hamilton county, Ohio, should vigorously enforce the laws regulating the liquor traffic, the result would probably be the election of a number of Democratic congressmen. It is to be supposed that the Republican candidate for sheriff in Hamilton county would be a gold standard man and therefore, being a gold standard man, he would not wish to do anything in lamilton county which would endanger the success of the gold standard con- gressional candidate in another district. This has paralyzed the execution of laws in many directions. Executive officers realize that if in one district they faithfully execute a law, punishment will be brought not against them alone, but against the principles of the party they represent. Consequently, the combination of men and measures is the most potent force in preventing the enforcement of the law; and the adoption of direct legislation, by separating the question of men and measures, would be the most efficient method of securing proper law enforcement.