_Question_. You have heretofore incidentally expressed yourself
on the matter of local suffrage in the District of Columbia. Have
you any objections to giving your present views of the question?
_Answer_. I am still in favor of suffrage in the District. The
real trouble is, that before any substantial relief can be reached,
there must be a change in the Constitution of the United States.
The mere right to elect aldermen and mayors and policemen is of no
great importance. It is a mistake to take all political power from
the citizens of the District. Americans want to help rule the
country. The District ought to have at least one Representative
in Congress, and should elect one presidential elector. The people
here should have a voice. They should feel that they are a part
of this country. They should have the right to sue in all Federal
courts, precisely as though they were citizens of a State. This
city ought to have half a million of inhabitants. Thousands would
come here every year from every part of the Union, were it not for
the fact that they do not wish to become political nothings. They
think that citizenship is worth something, and they preserve it by
staying away from Washington. This city is a "flag of truce" where
wounded and dead politicians congregate; the Mecca of failures,
the perdition of claimants, the purgatory of seekers after place,
and the heaven only of those who neither want nor do anything.
Nothing is manufactured, no solid business is done in this city,
and there never will be until energetic, thrifty people wish to
make it their home, and they will not wish that until the people
of the District have something like the rights and political
prospects of other citizens. It is hard to see why the right to
representation should be taken from citizens living in the Capital
of the Nation. The believers in free government should believe in
a free capital.
_Question_. Are there any valid reasons why the constitutional
limitations to the elective franchise in the District of Columbia
should not be removed by an amendment to that instrument?
_Answer_. I cannot imagine one. If our Government is founded upon
a correct principle there can be no objection urged against suffrage
in the District that cannot, with equal force, be urged against
every part of the country. If freedom is dangerous here, it is
safe nowhere. If a man cannot be trusted in the District, he is
dangerous in the State. We do not trust the place where the man
happens to be; we trust the man. The people of this District cannot
remain in their present condition without becoming dishonored.
The idea of allowing themselves to be governed by commissioners,
in whose selection they have no part, is monstrous. The people
here beg, implore, request, ask, pray, beseech, intercede, crave,
urge, entreat, supplicate, memorialize and most humbly petition,
but they neither vote nor demand. They are not allowed to enter
the Temple of Liberty; they stay in the lobby or sit on the steps.
_Question_. They say Paris is France, because her electors or
citizens control that municipality. Do you foresee any danger of
centralization in the full enfranchisement of the citizens of
Washington?
_Answer_. There was a time when the intelligence of France was in
Paris. The country was besotted, ignorant, Catholic; Paris was
alive, educated, Infidel, full of new theories, of passion and
heroism. For two hundred years Paris was an athlete chained to a
corpse. The corpse was the rest of France. It is different now,
and the whole country is at last filling with light. Besides,
Paris has two millions of people. It is filled with factories.
It is not only the intellectual center, but the center of money
and business as well. Let the _Corps Legislatif_ meet anywhere,
and Paris will continue to be in a certain splendid sense--France.
Nothing like that can ever happen here unless you expect Washington
to outstrip New York, Philadelphia and Chicago. If allowing the
people of the District of Columbia to vote was the only danger to
the Republic, I should be politically the happiest of men. I think
it somewhat dangerous to deprive even one American citizen of the
right to govern himself.
_Question_. Would you have Government clerks and officials appointed
to office here given the franchise in the District? and should
this, if given, include the women clerks?
_Answer_. Citizenship should be determined here as in the States.
Clerks should not be allowed to vote unless their intention is to
make the District their home. When I make a government I shall
give one vote to each family. The unmarried should not be represented
except by parents. Let the family be the unit of representation.
Give each hearthstone a vote.
_Question_. How do you regard the opposition of the local clergy
and of the Bourbon Democracy to enfranchising the citizens of the
District?
_Answer_. I did not know that the clergy did oppose it. If, as
you say, they do oppose it because they fear it will extend the
liquor traffic, I think their reason exceedingly stupid. You cannot
make men temperate by shutting up a few of the saloons and leaving
others wide open. Intemperance must be met with other weapons.
The church ought not to appeal to force. What would the clergy of
Washington think should the miracle of Cana be repeated in their
day? Had they been in that country, with their present ideas, what
would they have said? After all there is a great deal of philosophy
in the following: "Better have the whole world voluntarily drunk
then sober on compulsion." Of course the Bourbons object. Objecting
is the business of a Bourbon. He always objects. If he does not
understand the question he objects because he does not, and if he
does understand he objects because he does. With him the reason
for objecting is the fact that he does.
_Question_. What effect, if any, would the complete franchise to
our citizens have upon real estate and business in Washington?
_Answer_. If the people here had representation according to
numbers--if the avenues to political preferment were open--if men
here could take part in the real government of the country, if they
could bring with them all their rights, this would be a great and
splendid Capital. We ought to have here a University, the best in
the world, a library second to none, and here should be gathered
the treasures of American art. The Federal Government has been
infinitely economical in the direction of information. I hope the
time will come when our Government will give as much to educate
two men as to kill one.
--_The Capital_, Washington, D. C., December 18, 1881.