At the outset of our deliberations, Republican delegates, it may be
interesting to recall the circumstances of two prior national campaigns
in which political symptoms and dissensions were quite analogous to
those existing to-day. When the Republican state convention met in
1880, and again in 1896, the outlook for the success of the Republican
party had for a time been discouraging. In each of these campaigns
there were many who feared that the party had been disrupted and that
its usefulness might be coming to an end. In each campaign a wave
of false doctrine, sentimentality and prejudice threatened to drown
reason amid the prevailing excitement, clamor and declamation. But in
each courage and soberness came before November, and the common sense,
honesty, sanity and patriotism of the American people supported the
sound principles and policies of national and constitutional government
for which the Republican party stands.
During the first three months of the political campaign of 1880,
it seemed as though the Democratic candidate would be elected.
The nomination of General Hancock had been received with great
demonstrations of enthusiasm. He was personally attractive and
popular, and at the outset little attention was paid to the fact that
the platform of his party was radical and had declared in favor of
"a tariff for revenue only" with the consequent abandonment of the
protective system. The Republicans were not united; in some states they
were hopelessly divided. The defection was certain to be large. In many
Republican states the Greenback party, with its financial and social
heresies, had increased enormously in strength, and it had nominated a
national ticket. Maine had been carried in September by a combination
of Greenbackers and Democrats. In November the Republican party was
to lose New Jersey, California and Nevada, and, for the first time
since the Civil War, it would fail to receive any electoral votes from
the states south of Mason and Dixon's line. Yet Garfield was elected
by 214 electoral votes against 155 for Hancock. New York, which had
gone Democratic in 1876 with a plurality of 32,700, went Republican in
1880 with a plurality of 21,000. Thus we see that, although there was
then schism and dissension in the Republican ranks, and although the
party lost Maine in September and New Jersey, California and Nevada in
November, as well as every southern state, its candidates nevertheless
were elected.
A consideration of the circumstances of the campaign of 1896 will
prove even more instructive and encouraging. The Republican party was
then divided and threatened with ruin by defections. The leaders in
the national convention at St. Louis had courageously refused to bend
to the demands and threats of a numerous minority, who were urging a
radical platform and a radical candidate. A large number of Republicans
had bolted, and they were loudly proclaiming that they alone
represented the true and overwhelming sentiment of the party. According
to them all else was fraudulent, and all who did not agree with them
were accused of having been corrupted by the moneyed interests. It was
evident that this faction had set out to rule or ruin their party,
and, having failed to coerce it, were determined to overthrow it. They
organized a new party, which they called the National Silver party;
they assembled in convention at St. Louis amid excitement and posing
and virtuous homilies about reformation and social uplift quite similar
to those which we have heard during the past summer; they prophesied
the death of the Republican party for its alleged betrayal of the
people, and they proceeded to endorse the candidacy and views of Mr.
Bryan. The Populist party, likewise largely composed of dissatisfied
and discontented Republicans, held its national convention at St.
Louis, went through similar political performances and emotional
displays, and endorsed the Democratic candidate.
It would be difficult to exaggerate the enthusiasm in 1896 for Mr.
Bryan. I comment upon it now in order that comparisons may be made and
the lesson appreciated. Wherever he moved, immense and excited throngs
pressed about him and wildly cheered his utterances. Much of the
character of the present campaign was then in evidence. Bryan preached
a social reformation and a crusade against established institutions,
constitutional government and the supremacy of the law. He played
upon envy, discontent and cupidity. He attracted to his standard the
remnants of Coxey's "army," which two years before had marched to
Washington, calling itself the "Army of the Commonweal of Christ." In
our country such movements frequently mask in the robes of religion.
Bryan denounced the President then in office. He assailed our judicial
system, including the Supreme Court of the United States. He posed as
a knight-errant and crusader who sought to uplift the poor and redress
the wrongs of the nation. He repeated all the exploded claptrap of
demagogues. And his eloquence, together with his apparent sincerity,
made him a most dangerous candidate, far more dangerous than are our
opponents of to-day.
The combination of Democrats and former Republicans in 1896 was more
formidable than if their vote had been divided and the discontented
Republicans, Populists and Silverites had nominated a separate ticket.
It would have been easier to defeat a divided enemy. Plurality and not
majority in each state determines the choice of presidential electors,
although a majority of the electors is necessary to elect a President.
The situation was very critical because the times were hard, many good
reasons for discontent existed, thousands of workmen in every state
were unemployed, and agitators and demagogues found ready response to
their appeals in the hearts of men who were suffering from hunger.
Yet, even under such conditions, the defense of constitutional
government and established institutions was safe in the hands of the
thoughtful, sober and patriotic people of the country. A complete
revulsion of public feeling took place before November. The Democratic
party, which four years before had carried the nation with a plurality
of 381,000 and the state of New York with a plurality of 45,500, was
defeated by the Republican candidate with a plurality of nearly 604,000
in the nation and over 268,000 in the state. McKinley received 271
electoral votes against 176 for Bryan. That great success was secured
in the face of the fact that ten western states which are normally
Republican went Democratic; in other words, the Republican candidates
were triumphantly elected in 1896 although Colorado, Kansas, Idaho,
Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming
all cast their electoral votes for Mr. Bryan.
The task of the Republican party in these prior campaigns was to bring
home to the people the vital importance to them of the issues of
those campaigns. Similarly our task in this campaign is to convince
the voters of the country that they are again called upon to preserve
the industrial system upon which the wages, income and property of
millions of American citizens are based, as well as to defend the
constitutional representative government under which for more than a
century we have maintained political, religious and individual liberty
and have prospered beyond all nations.
At the beginning of this campaign and until recently many Republicans
were disheartened. The menace to our institutions and future in the
possible success of the Progressive party and the re-election of
ex-President Roosevelt seemed as portentous as was the menace of
Bryanism in 1896, in 1900 and in 1908. To some, therefore, it seemed
at first as if it might be their patriotic duty to vote the Democratic
ticket. Patriotism is ever more than party. But these Republicans now
realize the folly of that course and the certainty that the Republican
party will maintain its solidarity. We see clearly that the candidacy
of Mr. Roosevelt is doomed to defeat, and that only a desire to work
injury to the Republican party continues the campaign of the so-called
Progressives.
I have examined the published record as to contested seats in the
national convention of the Republican party at Chicago, and I have
endeavored to ascertain all of the facts. I believe that I have done
so. In my judgment no fair-minded person who will take the trouble to
read the evidence, who will look impartially at the facts and candidly
seek to discover the truth, can doubt the fairness of the procedure
or the correctness of the decisions. Most of the contests were wholly
unjustifiable, if not fraudulent, and had to be abandoned. Indeed,
it was shamelessly boasted by a well-known newspaper that the great
majority of the contests had been gotten up in order to create a
psychological effect, which, I take it, among plain people would mean
the deliberate creation of a false impression. I will read you the
language of one of the exemplars of the class of reformers who are too
virtuous to remain in the Republican party and who profess to teach
the people of this country political morality. The "Washington Times"
contains the following in its issue of June 9, 1912: "For psychological
effect as a move in practical politics it was necessary for the
Roosevelt people to start contests on these early Taft selections in
order that a tabulation of delegate strength could be put out that
would show Roosevelt holding a good hand. In the game a table showing
Taft 150, Roosevelt 19, contested 1, would not be very much calculated
to inspire confidence, whereas, one showing Taft 23, Roosevelt 19,
contested 127, looked very different. That is the whole story of the
large number of southern contests that were started early in the game.
It was never expected that they would be taken very seriously. They
served a useful purpose, and now the national committee is deciding
them in favor of Taft in most cases without real division."
Of the 238 contests finally filed on behalf of ex-President Roosevelt,
164 were abandoned. The contests which were not abandoned were decided
on their merits. After studying the facts, I am convinced that the
Taft delegates were legally and morally entitled to their seats.
Unfortunately, the record is voluminous, and few will take the time or
trouble to read the evidence. The cry of fraud is misleading many. But
surely when such men as Senator Root and the presidents of Columbia
and Cornell universities declare their conviction of the integrity of
the procedure and of the decisions, we may well rest satisfied. In
his speech notifying President Taft of his renomination, Senator Root
said that neither in the facts nor in the arguments produced before
the national committee, the committee on credentials, the convention
itself, or otherwise, did there appear to be any just ground for
impeaching the honesty and good faith of the decisions of the national
committee. He further declared to President Taft that his title to
the nomination was "as clear and unimpeachable as the title of any
candidate of any party since political conventions began." Senator
Root's high character, his great services to the nation and to the
party, and his lofty sense of personal honor and responsibility,
entitle him to have his word and his opinion under such circumstances
unqualifiedly accepted by the people of the state of New York.
The preference of the majority of the national convention being
clearly for President Taft, should this majority nevertheless have
cast him aside and nominated Mr. Roosevelt because of threats of
disruption of the party similar to those of 1896, or because in a few
states ex-President Roosevelt had secured a larger primary vote than
President Taft in hasty contests in which misrepresentation undoubtedly
had led many astray? What course did patriotism dictate to the majority
of the delegates? Ought they to have surrendered, and, because of
clamor and threats of disruption of the party, put aside their own
preferences and instructions for President Taft and nominated Mr.
Roosevelt? There were reasons why this course would have been an act of
folly as well as of injustice.
In the first place, the nomination of an ex-President of the United
States for a third term would have been in violation of an unwritten
rule established by Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, and
followed ever since. The Republican party which, as a matter of sound
principle and political ethics, had refused in 1880 to nominate
ex-President Grant for a third term, notwithstanding his transcendent
claims to the gratitude of the nation, could not stultify itself in
1912 by nominating ex-President Roosevelt for a third term.
The wisdom of maintaining this unwritten rule should be evident. The
common sense of thoughtful, candid and patriotic men must convince them
that nothing could be more dangerous than to permit any individual,
however popular or eloquent, to wield the power of the presidential
office for more than two terms. The New York convention of 1788, which
ratified the Constitution of the United States, proposed an amendment
to the effect "that no person shall be eligible to the office of
President of the United States a third time," and this undoubtedly has
ever since been the sentiment of the people of this state, although it
was defied in 1880 when an attempt was made to force the nomination of
ex-President Grant for a third term, notwithstanding the fact that only
five years before the Republican state convention had declared in its
platform "our unalterable opposition to the election of any president
for a third term."
There is not time to discuss the genesis or wisdom of this unwritten
rule of political policy, which had never been violated by any
political party until the nomination of ex-President Roosevelt by the
Progressives. It is now pretended that there never was any such rule or
principle of political policy and that Washington and Jefferson were
governed solely by considerations of their own personal convenience.
Three quotations from Jefferson's writings ought to be sufficient to
explode this pretense. I take Jefferson because he is now one of the
patron saints of the Progressive as well as of the Democratic party.
In January, 1805, shortly after his re-election, Jefferson declared as
follows: "General Washington set the example of voluntary retirement
after eight years. I shall follow it. And a few more precedents will
oppose the obstacle of habit to any one after awhile who shall endeavor
to extend his term. Perhaps it may beget a disposition to establish
it by an amendment of the Constitution. I believe I am doing right,
therefore, in pursuing my principle." Again in 1807 he wrote to the
legislature of Vermont: "I should unwillingly be the person who,
disregarding the sound precedent set by an illustrious predecessor,
should furnish the first example of prolongation beyond the second
term of office." And fourteen years afterwards, in 1821, he published
his "Autobiography," in which he said: "The example of four Presidents
voluntarily retiring at the end of their eighth year, and the progress
of public opinion that the principle is salutary, have given it in
practice the force of precedent and usage; insomuch, that, should a
President consent to be a candidate for a third election, I trust he
would be rejected on this demonstration of ambitious views."
But aside from all principle and precedent, the promises deliberately
made by ex-President Roosevelt to the people of the United States
rendered his candidacy impossible without what seems to many a breach
of faith. The facts speak for themselves.
On the 8th of November, 1904, President Roosevelt expressed to the
people of the United States gratitude for his election, and appealed
to them for their support and confidence during his second term,
undoubtedly having in mind President McKinley's example in 1901, when
he had declared that he would not accept a nomination for a third term
if it were tendered him, and had pointed out that there were "questions
of the greatest importance before the administration and the country,
and their just consideration should not be prejudiced in the public
mind by even the suspicion of the thought of a third term." President
Roosevelt's language in 1904 was as follows: "On the 4th of March
next I shall have served three and one-half years, and this three and
one-half years constitutes my first term. The wise custom which limits
the President to two terms regards the substance and not the form.
Under no circumstances will I be a candidate for or accept another
nomination." In December, 1907, he reiterated this declaration, and
added the following words: "I have not changed and shall not change
the decision thus announced." Yet on February 24, 1912, he gave to the
press a letter in which he said: "I will accept the nomination for
President if it is tendered to me, and I will adhere to this decision
until the convention has expressed its preference."
The statesman who had thus pledged his word could not break his promise
to the people without sacrificing the good opinion of many citizens.
And if the Republican national convention had joined ex-President
Roosevelt in a repudiation of these solemn promises, it would have
alienated a large body of voters who still hold in reverence the names
and examples of Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, and who
still believe in political consistency and morality, and it would have
put the party on the defensive throughout the campaign upon an issue
of plain and simple morals. The Republican party, moreover, could not
afford--in fact it would have been hopeless--to ask for the continued
support of the country on any such terms.
Another reason why the majority in the Chicago convention should not
have cast aside President Taft and nominated ex-President Roosevelt
was because to have done so would have been an act of political
treachery, ingratitude and dishonor. President Taft had earned and
deserved renomination for great and faithful service to the nation and
to the party. The custom generally followed had been to renominate
a President who had served well and capably. The Republicans of New
York had unanimously proclaimed in their platform of 1910, when
ex-President Roosevelt himself controlled the state convention and
dictated its policy: "We enthusiastically indorse the progressive
and statesmanlike leadership of William Howard Taft, and declare our
pride in the achievements of his first eighteen months as President of
the United States. Each succeeding month since his inauguration has
confirmed the nation in its high esteem of his greatness of character,
intellectual ability, sturdy common sense, extraordinary patience and
perseverance, broad and statesmanlike comprehension of public questions
and unfaltering and unswerving adherence to duty." And nothing had
occurred during the months intervening between this state convention
and the national convention to shake that high and just estimate of
the character and ability of President Taft. He had consented to
run when he believed he could rely on the loyalty of Mr. Roosevelt
as his friend, and subsequent withdrawal would have been a personal
humiliation.
In practical achievements, President Taft's administration had been
notably successful and efficient, although not spectacular. It may
be asserted with confidence that the laws enacted by Congress never
had been administered more effectively, honestly and impartially
than under President Taft. Without turmoil or agitation, and without
threatening Congress, he had accomplished more in three and one-third
years than his immediate predecessor in seven and one-half years. He
had shown a consistent policy of real progressiveness and constructive
statesmanship. In every branch of government he had confirmed President
Roosevelt's panegyric of 1908, when he urged the American people to
elect Mr. Taft because of his pre-eminent qualifications for the office
of President of the United States.
It may be true that after eighteen years of unselfish devotion and
conspicuously efficient and faithful service to the American public,
as solicitor general, United States circuit judge, governor of the
Philippines, secretary of war and President of the United States,
Mr. Taft had failed to secure popularity with the thoughtless, the
discontented and the revolutionary, and with that part of the press
that lives on sensationalism and muck-raking. But such popularity
should hardly be the test of qualification for the great office of
President of the United States. We know that Lincoln was so unpopular
with the unthinking and impatient in 1864 that he despaired of
re-election and that he expected defeat at the polls unless the army
could save the day and change public opinion by some striking successes.
Popularity with the unreasoning and discontented was easily within the
reach of President Taft had he sought it. In view of the prestige of
his high office and the reverence it commands, he had only to practice
the well-known arts of the demagogue by which crowds are stirred and
led astray--as well known to him as to all who read history. He had
only to issue from time to time high-sounding declarations about his
staunch patriotism, his own virtue, his uncompromising veracity, his
self-sacrificing loyalty to duty, the infallibility of his judgment,
the purity of his motives, and the corruption and mendacity of his
adversaries. He had only to rail at corporations, at the builders of
the industries of the country and at bankers and capitalists, in order
to secure the applause of envy and discontent. He had only to inveigh
against predatory wealth to become at once the idol of predatory
poverty. But his self-respect would not allow him to stoop so low and
to pander to what is weakest, if not basest, in human nature, and his
sense of duty would not permit him thus to degrade the great office of
President of the United States.
The ingratitude of republics is proverbial; yet surely it would have
been an unparalleled act of ingratitude for President Taft's own party
to refuse him the renomination he had earned and deserved. The lesson
that the repudiation of President Taft by his own party would have
taught the country and future generations would have been demoralizing.
It would have constituted a warning to all our present and future
public officers that with us Americans conspicuously efficient and
faithful public service goes for naught, and that Republican public
officers, from the President of the United States down to the lowest,
must not expect to be judged by their acts, ability and character, but
as they have succeeded in cultivating the applause of the unthinking.
The great issues before the people in the present critical campaign,
however, are far more important than the personal qualifications,
claims, or merits of the candidates. These issues are: (1) the
constitutional right and power of Congress to protect American
industries and to preserve our present industrial system; (2) the
threatened overthrow of the representative system of government in
state and nation by the introduction of the initiative, the referendum
and the recall, and (3) the assault upon the administration of justice
in American courts.
Upon the tariff question, there is an irreconcilable difference between
the principles of the Republican party and those of the Democratic
party. The one insists that it is the legitimate duty and function of
Congress in levying taxes to protect American industries and wages,
whilst the other insists that Congress has neither the right nor the
power under the federal Constitution to do so. I shall assume that
political platforms, although they may not be binding programmes,
certainly are intended to embody a declaration of the political faith
and principles in which the respective candidates believe and which
they intend to represent. If this be not so, then why are platforms
adopted?
The platform of the Republican party unqualifiedly pledges the party
and its candidates to a protective tariff with duties so adjusted
as adequately to protect American industries and wages. It concedes
that readjustments must be made and that excessive rates should be
reduced, but it insists that, in order to do so intelligently and
fairly, correct information is indispensable. It favors securing
this information by an expert commission and a non-partisan tariff
board. It seeks the withdrawal of the tariff from politics in order
that each industry may be dealt with on its merits by non-partisan
commissions. It indicts the Democratic party for its refusal to
provide funds for the continuance of such a tariff board and for the
reckless and sectional tariff bills passed by the Democratic House
of Representatives which wholly disregard the protection of American
interests.
Senator Root declared at the national convention that the Democratic
party did not want to ascertain the facts upon which a just protective
measure could be framed, but intended that there should be no
protection for American industries, and he further declared that the
Democratic House of Representatives had framed and passed a series
of tariff bills for revenue only with complete indifference to the
absolute destruction that their enactment would bring upon great
American industries. He asserted that "the American people have now
to pass, not upon the abuses of the tariff, but on the fundamental
question between the two systems of tariff-making."
This challenge the Democratic party met and answered in the first
and cardinal plank adopted by its national convention at Baltimore,
which pledged the party and its candidates to the ultimate attainment
of the principles of free trade, because of the absence of power
in the Congress of the United States to protect American labor and
American industries. The plank reads as follows: "We declare it to
be a fundamental principle of the Democratic party that the federal
government, under the Constitution, has no right or power to impose or
collect tariff duties except for the purpose of revenue." And there can
be no doubt that this declaration was assumed not only to represent the
present free-trade policy of the Democratic party but to be in full
accord with Governor Wilson's personal views as an out-and-out free
trader.
The people of the United States are, therefore, now asked by the
Democratic party to vote in favor of the proposition that, no matter
what foreign competition there may be, even from Asiatics, the American
national government has neither the _right_ nor the _power_ to protect
a single industry or a single workman. Such a proposition may well
amaze and delight foreign countries, and no wonder they all desire the
success of the Democratic party. Every other national government not
only has the power to protect its industries, but has again and again
exercised that power whenever the interests of its people demanded
protection. The power in one form or another is being exercised to-day
against American products by almost every government in the world,
including the colonies of England, as witness Canada. The power would
be exercised by England again to-morrow if it should appear to be for
her interest to do so. Yet, no matter that our factories may be closed
and our wage-earners thrown out of work as in 1894, 1895 and 1896,
no matter how easily Europe and Asia could make our country their
dumping-ground and could make a prey of our necessities after closing
our workshops and destroying our industries, no matter how beneficial
to all classes it may be to have a diversity of industries--the
Democratic party, nevertheless, proclaims that our national government
is powerless, and that there is neither the _right_ nor the _power_ to
enact a tariff except for revenue.
We Republicans firmly believe that if there be one feature or element
of right and power within the spirit and scope of the Constitution of
the United States, and clearly vested in Congress, it is the right
and power to impose duties for the purpose of protecting American
industries and American labor. The very first tariff act, approved
July 4, 1789, one hundred and twenty-three years ago, declared that
one of its purposes, one of its objects, one of its inducing motives,
was "the encouragement and protection of manufactures." Washington
approved and signed that bill. Presidents Washington, Jefferson,
Madison and Monroe--all of them of the generation that framed the
federal Constitution--recognized the existence of the power to protect
and recommended the protection of American industries. But the American
people are now asked in 1912 to vote for a party and a platform which
repudiate both the _right_ and the _power_ of Congress to protect
American workmen, farmers and manufacturers.
It is impossible in this outline of issues adequately to discuss
the principles and policy of a protective tariff. The details of
that important and vital subject must be taken up and analyzed at
other times. Generalizations would be of little value. The facts are
readily at hand, and they demonstrate that the material welfare of the
country and of nearly every class and section has been promoted by the
protective policy, and it will continue to be so promoted. Although we
may now be willing to face free competition with Europeans, we cannot
be blind to the menace and danger of free competition with Asiatics.
Just across the Pacific ocean, with constantly cheapening freight and
passenger rates, are populations of 50,000,000 in Japan, 450,000,000 in
China, 300,000,000 in India--800,000,000--who will furnish efficient
labor at wages ranging from 10 to 30 cents a day for twelve hours' work
on the same kind of machines at which American men and women are now
working. Shall we open the flood-gates? Shall we elect as President
the historian who, but a few years ago in the quiet and impartial
atmosphere of his study, declared to the world his sympathy for needy
Asiatics and his opinion that "the Chinese were more to be desired,
as workmen if not as citizens, than most of the coarse crew that came
crowding in every year at the eastern ports"?
This generation has had one bitter experience of Democratic tariff
legislation. In 1892, the Democratic party was, for the first time in
thirty-two years, placed in control of both houses of Congress and the
presidency. It came into office committed to free trade, as it would
now again come into office pledged to free trade. It passed the Wilson
bill in August, 1894, and thereby took its first step towards the
abandonment of the policy of protection for American industries. There
followed, principally as the direct result of this Democratic tariff
legislation and the antecedent menace, an acute period of industrial
and financial depression. I had supposed that the fateful years 1894,
1895 and 1896 would never be forgotten by those who suffered through
them. As Governor Wilson himself well said in his "History of the
American People," in describing this period of misery: "Men of the
poorer sort were idle everywhere, and filled with a sort of despair.
All the large cities and manufacturing towns teemed with unemployed
workingmen who were with the utmost difficulty kept from starvation
by the systematic efforts of organized charity." This was also a time
of unprecedented social unrest and discontent and of Coxey's ragged
"Army of the Commonweal of Christ" crying for food and work. It was a
period of misery and depression, of popular discontent and disturbance,
of strikes, riots, destruction of property, murder and maiming in
industrial disputes. No one could deny, as the historian pointed out,
that the country had fallen upon evil times and that American workmen
found it harder than ever to live.
We have only to recall to the people's minds the conditions of
unemployment, poverty and misery which followed the last tariff
legislation of the Democratic party, and compare conditions as
they exist to-day. The people of this country will make a terrible
mistake and a frightful blunder if they now vote to run the risk of a
repetition of those days under the delusion that the currency system of
the government was the cause of the business depression and misery that
followed immediately upon the election of Cleveland in 1892 and the
passage of the Wilson tariff law in 1894.
Many are now telling the people that the tariff is solely responsible
for the high cost of living and for the prevalence of social unrest
and discontent. Such phenomena are world-wide and exist abroad as
much as, if not more than, they exist here. In England, which has
no protective tariff, the complaint against the high cost of living
has been even louder than here. The real causes of the increase in
the cost of living with us undoubtedly are: (1) enormous increase in
the world's supply of gold, necessarily diminishing the purchasing
value of the dollar, for the world's gold production, which from
1850 to 1890 averaged $120,000,000 per annum and was $130,650,000 in
1891, increased to fully $461,000,000 in 1911, (2) rapid increase of
population without a corresponding increase of the production of food
and other necessaries of life, (3) flocking to the city and abandoning
the farm, (4) appreciation in land values, (5) increase in the price
of raw materials, (6) higher rates of wages and decrease in the number
of hours of work, (7) better standards of living, (8) exhaustion of
some sources of supply, (9) extravagance in public expenditures, and
(10) withdrawal of armies of civil servants from productive industry.
These are the principal and controlling causes that tend to the higher
cost of living; they are world-wide, and, if explained, they will be
easily understood and recognized by intelligent and candid business
men and workmen, who will at once perceive that these causes will not
be removed in any degree by free-trade legislation. Last year serious
disturbances occurred in Europe as a result of the prevailing high cost
of food supplies there, and the British board of trade is now making an
investigation into the cost of living, not only in England but also in
Germany, France and Belgium. In fact, an international commission is at
this moment inquiring into these causes. How preposterous it would be
to say that the American protective tariff was the cause of the high
cost of living in free-trade England or elsewhere in Europe!
Nor is the protective tariff in any sense responsible for the spirit of
social unrest and discontent except, perhaps, in so far as prosperity
begets discontent and multiplies appetites. Throughout the civilized
world in recent years there has developed a spirit of social unrest and
discontent, of disregard of law, and of disrespect for moral principles
and religious beliefs. To those who look below the surface, it is more
and more evident that this world-wide symptom is due, in greatest
measure, to the spread of Socialism. According to the teachings of
the Socialists, avowed or unavowed (for many who are preaching its
doctrines would resent being called Socialists), our entire social
system and the system of laws under which we live are unjust and should
be upset, property rights should be destroyed, and religious beliefs,
which are the principal source of our respect for law and order and the
rights of property, should be broken down. As an American student and
writer has said, a single passage from Liebknecht stands fairly for
opinions that may be quoted from twenty authoritative socialist sources
in Europe. That passage is as follows: "It is our duty as Socialists
to root out the faith in God with all our zeal, nor is any one worthy
the name who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism." I
believe that few American Socialists have gone to any such extreme,
but such has certainly been the tendency and teaching of Socialism in
Europe.
Unfortunately the atmosphere of the present campaign is calculated
to obscure and hide the true issues in controversy and the real
danger that lurks under so much noise, declamation and enthusiasm.
An avowed assault and an open declaration of war on society, on our
form of government, or on our courts of justice would bring the points
so clearly before the American people that none of us could for a
moment doubt the outcome. We Republicans would hail and welcome an
open attack, because we know that the people would then quickly and
overwhelmingly rally to the support of our party. The more openly
constitutional government and our social system are attacked, the more
strongly will they become cemented in the affection and reverence of
the people.
Most of our political and social institutions which are now being
assailed as antiquated are founded on truths which ought ever to be
self-evident. These truths sound trite, but "trite truths are often the
most valuable truths, though sometimes divested of force by their very
triteness." We are constantly hearing talk about the principles of the
Constitution being antiquated in the eyes of these modern iconoclasts,
and the other day a leader of the Progressives in this state, who is
himself a lawyer, referring to the Progressive judicial nominations
boasted that they had selected men who did not believe in a "dead
constitution." Yet these candidates are ready to accept a judicial
office which they could not rightly fill for a minute without taking
an oath to support the Constitution in which they do not believe.
When a truth, be it political, moral, or religious, is once discovered
and established, it is eternal; it loses none of its vitality because
it has grown old; it never dies. If some religious Progressive--and our
political Progressives affect much of the religiously emotional--should
now preach a new religion and proclaim that existing religions and
their restraints should be cast aside simply because they are old,
the dullest man would readily see the utter fallacy and wickedness
of such an argument. Imagine any one seriously arguing that the Ten
Commandments are worthless and dead as rules of human conduct and
self-restraint because they are four thousand years old and were first
enunciated in an age not so rapid as our own--in an age when there
were no printing presses, no steam engines, no electricity and no
talking machines! Yet, so long as our civilization endures, so long
as human intelligence lasts, so long as religion shall continue to
comfort and sustain and uplift men and women, so long will the Ten
Commandments be sound and true rules of conduct and the fundamental
basis of all religions. Likewise as to the great political documents
evidencing the progress of the human race upward towards liberty, like
Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, the
Constitution of the United States: they embody and declare principles
of political justice and fundamental truths which are eternal; and
whilst majorities at times may ignorantly and recklessly disregard
them or cast them aside for temporary objects, they are as eternal and
imperishable as are the Ten Commandments.
Of the many revolutionary schemes in the Progressive platform, both
national and state, one of the most dangerous and far-reaching is the
proposal to destroy the representative character of our government
by substituting direct action by the people in place of action by
legislatures and officers elected by the people. This is to be
accomplished through the initiative and the referendum. The movement
is doubly important at the present time because, as is well known,
the Democratic candidate for the presidency, after teaching directly
the contrary for many years, has become a recent convert to these
ideas. Although such a scheme might be beneficial or harmless in the
little town meetings of New England, in small municipalities, or in
agricultural states having a homogeneous population less in number
than some of the counties of the state of New York, the initiative
and the referendum would be wholly unsuited to an empire such as ours
with a population of nearly 100,000,000, or to a state such as New
York with a population of nearly 10,000,000. Would it not be absurd
and preposterous to have the thousands of bills annually introduced
in Congress passed upon by the people at large, and would it not be
equally absurd and preposterous for a state like New York, passing
hundreds of bills every year, to give a small minority the right to
compel the submission of every statute to the vote of the people? Would
it not be little short of calamitous to have those least qualified to
understand and appreciate the changes they were making pass upon and
control legislation? The result would be chaos.
The great men who founded our system of constitutional government were
thoroughly familiar with the theory and operation of pure democracy
or direct action by the people, as distinguished from representative
government. They saw the past failures of pure democracy and the danger
of any such system, and they deliberately declined to adopt it. In
speaking of "the equal rights of man," Jefferson declared that "modern
times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only
device by which these rights can be secured, to wit,--government by
the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by
themselves."
The plain truth is that the trouble with our legislatures and with
Congress is the character of many of the men whom the people elect. The
remedy is in the hands of the voters. If they will elect capable and
honest men to legislative, executive and judicial office, we shall have
a cure at once. We need a remedy, not a poison.
Those who urge the introduction of the initiative, the referendum
and the recall base their argument on the ground that some of our
legislators and elective officers are incompetent or dishonest, and
that, therefore, the people should reserve the right to control
their actions and remove them. But if our legislators or other
elective officers are incompetent or dishonest--if they are not
truly representative of the people who elect them--then obviously
the fault lies with those who choose them, and the remedy is to
take such measures as will ensure the election of competent, honest
and representative men. If the people are now too busy to concern
themselves with the selection of honest and capable representatives,
is it reasonable to expect that they will concern themselves about the
merits of hundreds of statutes which they do not half understand, or
about the qualifications of the officers they have elected and would
recall? The fault is not with our representative system of government,
but either with the party organizations that often nominate incompetent
or dishonest men, or with the voters who tolerate such nominations
and elect such candidates. Our system of government, as every system
of free government, is based on the assumption that the people will
conscientiously exercise the elective franchise, and unless we can
depend upon an honest, sober-minded and patriotic majority to exercise
that franchise, our system of government must ultimately prove a
complete failure. The conscientious exercise of the elective franchise
is not merely a privilege--it is the highest duty of citizenship.
With the great increase in population, political parties and party
organizations undoubtedly have become a practical necessity, and
leadership is equally necessary; but it has also become indispensable
that these party organizations shall be conducted honestly so as to
represent truly the wishes of their party constituents. The urgent
duty of citizenship is to see to it that these party organizations are
conducted honestly and in a representative manner; but this is not to
be accomplished by disrupting or destroying the great parties. Instead
of pulling down the temple, we should drive out the money-changers.
Instead of killing we should cure. What we urgently need is legislation
providing for fair and honest party primaries and facilitating
independent candidacies, and then we should go farther and impose a
penalty or tax upon all qualified citizens who fail to cast a ballot at
the annual primaries and elections prescribed by law.
The initiative, the referendum and the recall would not cure present
evils, but would in fact only intensify and perpetuate them. The power
and control of unrepresentative and irresponsible party machines would
be largely increased instead of being curtailed. Better men would not
be nominated and elected, but quite the contrary; the self-seeker,
advertiser and manipulator alone would be nominated. The exercise of
the initiative, the referendum and the recall would be determined by
exactly the same people who now control our nominations and elections.
It is absurd to suppose that the very men who so often choose incapable
or dishonest representatives or neglect to vote at all would exercise
greater efficiency in supervising legislation, in recalling public
officers and judges, or in setting aside judicial decisions.
Equally absurd is the idea of legislation by popular vote. The
importance of framing laws and constitutional amendments in clear and
exact language and the impracticability of doing so without careful
consideration and discussion and comparison with existing provisions,
as in legislative committees, must be recognized by all thinking men.
Our system of laws is becoming more and more complex every year, and
unavoidably so. The people at large cannot be expected to know and
understand a great and extremely complex system of laws, and it is
no reflection on them to say that they cannot grasp the details of
legislation any more than it would be to say that there are few men
in the community competent to administer as judges the unavoidably
intricate system of laws under which we live.
We have only to look at recent experience in the state of New York
in regard to the adoption of constitutional amendments, the most
important function that can be exercised by a voter, to appreciate the
folly of the proposed remedies. The total vote for and against these
amendments has frequently been less than one-half--and at times barely
one-quarter--of those who actually voted at general elections. Thus,
to take three recent experiences: the total vote cast in 1909 on an
important constitutional amendment was only 477,105 as against a total
vote the year before of 1,638,350; the total vote in 1910 on another
important constitutional amendment was 664,892 as against 1,445,249
votes for the gubernatorial candidates, and seven amendments submitted
in 1911 were defeated with an average total vote of 621,678. Similar
and even more striking experiences will be found in other states. Is
it likely that there would be a fuller or more representative and
intelligent expression of public understanding in regard to complex
legislative enactments, or in regard to the recall of judges or other
public officers, or of judicial decisions than we find now in the case
of important constitutional amendments?
To render judges subject to recall would be utterly destructive of
the character and independence of our judiciary. No self-respecting
lawyer would serve on the bench under such conditions. An upright
judge should fearlessly declare and enforce the law without regard
to popular agitation or political pressure. Frequently he is called
upon to decide between the individual on the one side and a clamorous
majority on the other side of a case before him. Take, for example,
our situation in New York with Tammany Hall controlling a majority of
the voters of the city. The legislature at the dictation of Mr. Murphy
passes another infamous Levy Election Law avowedly intended to prevent
independent nominations even for the bench. The judges declare the act
unconstitutional and protect the minority in their rights, just as we
saw them protecting the Progressives a few weeks ago. According to Mr.
Roosevelt and Mr. Straus, however, Tammany Hall should have the power
to punish these judges by recalling them and should have the right to
pass such disgraceful and tyrannical legislation by resort to the
initiative and the referendum! Indeed, it is impossible to conceive
of a scheme more surely calculated to shatter all our constitutional
rights, as well as all certainty in the law. Chief Justice Marshall
would have been repeatedly recalled for unpopular decisions which
are now universally applauded even by the Progressives. Imagine the
spectacle of recalling a Cullen or a Gray because he had dared to
decide against the clamor or wishes of a majority controlled by Tammany
Hall!
I have nowhere seen a stronger statement of the objections to the
recall of judges than in John Stuart Mill's work on "Representative
Government," published in 1861, where he said: "If a judge could
be removed from office by a popular vote, whoever was desirous of
supplanting him would make capital for that purpose out of all his
judicial decisions; would carry all of them, as far as he found
practicable, by irregular appeal before a public opinion wholly
incompetent, for want of having heard the case, or from having heard
it without either the precautions or the impartiality belonging to
a judicial hearing; would play upon popular passion and prejudice
where they existed, and take pains to arouse them where they did not.
And in this, if the case were interesting, and he took sufficient
trouble, he would infallibly be successful, unless the judge or his
friends descended into the arena, and made equally powerful appeals on
the other side. Judges would end by feeling that they risked their
office upon every decision they gave in a case susceptible of general
interest, and that it was less essential for them to consider what
decision was just, than what would be most applauded by the public, or
would least admit of insidious misrepresentation."
Probably no more crude, impracticable, or absurd scheme was ever
proposed by any one claiming to have the first and elemental ideas
of American constitutional government than the proposition to render
subject to recall or reversal by a majority vote all decisions in
constitutional cases affecting statutes passed under the police power.
The term "police power" is the most comprehensive that could have been
employed. Most of our individual rights are covered by that term; and
when the Progressives say that a statute passed under the police power
shall be valid and enforceable, notwithstanding the courts may declare
it to be arbitrary, unjust and unequal and hence unconstitutional,
if a temporary majority see fit to overrule the courts, they
propose that practically all the most vital and cherished of our
supposed inalienable individual rights--our personal and religious
liberty--shall in final result be at the mercy of any temporary
majority. In ultimate analysis, the proposition for the recall of
judicial decisions would mean that the majority should act as umpire in
any dispute as between themselves and the minority.
The hatred of the courts which the Progressives now share in common
with the Socialists, Anarchists and Populists, and that part of
organized labor and labor unions typified and represented by such men
as the McNamaras, the Debses and the Parks (who in truth shamefully
misrepresent the great majority of law-abiding and patriotic members
of these organizations), has forced into this campaign an unparalleled
attack upon our judicial system and the administration of justice.
When the New York state Progressive platform was first given to the
press on September 3rd, the judiciary plank read as follows: "We
heartily indorse the declarations of our national platform respecting
the judiciary and favor their embodiment in the organic law of the
state. We condemn the past attitude of the New York Court of Appeals
toward various important and humane measures of social legislation."
The unprecedented indecency of this attack upon the Court of Appeals
immediately produced such a storm of indignation throughout the
state that the clause appears later to have been amended so as to
eliminate that sentence. The final form given to the public omits this
denunciation of the highest court of our state, and confines the plank
to the proposals of the national platform. I have time now to discuss
only two of these planks.
The Progressives declare in their extraordinary and revolutionary
platform: "We believe that the issuance of injunctions in cases arising
out of labor disputes should be prohibited, when such injunctions would
not apply when no labor disputes existed." This should be compared
with substantially the same declaration in the Bryan platform of 1908,
in which the Democratic party declared: "We deem ... that injunctions
should not be issued in any cases in which injunctions would not issue
if no industrial dispute were involved."
It must seem incredible that the cultured and talented man who now
stands on the Progressive platform soliciting the votes of the people
was the President of the United States who in a formal message to
Congress on January 31, 1908, on the subject of injunctions in labor
disputes, used the following language: "Even though it were possible,
I should consider it most unwise to abolish the use of the process
of injunction. It is necessary in order that the courts may maintain
their own dignity, and in order that they may in an effective manner
check disorder and violence. The judge who uses it cautiously and
conservatively, but who, when the need arises, uses it fearlessly,
confers the greatest service upon our people, and his pre-eminent
usefulness as a public servant should be heartily recognized."
During the campaign of 1908, President Roosevelt fiercely denounced
Mr. Bryan and Mr. Gompers for the plank above quoted but which he
has now adopted. He then wrote a long letter to Senator Knox in
which he exposed the danger and dishonesty of this plank. It would
be necessary to read the whole of the letter in order to appreciate
President Roosevelt's indignation and horror that Bryan and Gompers
should favor such a proposition. I shall quote only a few sentences as
samples of the whole. President Roosevelt then wrote as follows: "This
is the plank that promises the 'remedy' against injunctions which Mr.
Gompers asked of Mr. Bryan's party. In actual fact, it means absolutely
nothing; no change of the law could be based on it; no man without
inside knowledge could foretell what its meaning would turn out to be,
for no man could foretell how any judge would decide in any given case,
as the plank apparently leaves each judge free to say when he issues
an injunction in a labor case whether or not it is a case in which an
injunction would issue if labor were not involved." Later the President
continued: "Mr. Gompers, now Mr. Bryan's open and avowed ally, has,
in the letter here quoted, attacked the federal courts in unmeasured
terms of reproach because, by a long line of decisions, the equity
courts have refused to make an outlaw of the business man, because his
right to carry on a lawful business under the peace of the law has
been protected by the process of injunction, because in a word one of
the most vital and most fundamental rights of the business world--the
right of a business man to carry on his business--has been sustained
and not denied by the processes of the courts of equity. This sweeping
attack of Mr. Gompers upon the judiciary has been made in a frank and
open effort to secure votes for Mr. Bryan." Mr. Roosevelt concluded the
letter as follows: "But there is another account against Messrs. Bryan
and Gompers in this matter. Ephraim feedeth on wind. Their proposed
remedy is an empty sham. They are seeking to delude their followers by
the promise of a law which would damage their country solely because
of the vicious moral purpose that would be shown by putting it upon
the statute books, but which would be utterly worthless to accomplish
its avowed purpose. I have not the slightest doubt that such a law as
that proposed by Mr. Bryan would, if enacted by Congress, be declared
unconstitutional by a unanimous Supreme Court, unless, indeed, Mr.
Bryan were able to pack this court with men appointed for the special
purpose of declaring such a law constitutional."
The Progressive plank against the power of the courts to punish for
contempt is equally revolutionary. It declares in favor of depriving
the courts of the power to punish for contempt except after a trial by
jury.
The crusade to deprive the courts of the power to punish for contempt
began at the time of the Chicago strike of 1894 when Eugene Debs and
his fellow-conspirators were found to be guilty of open, continued and
defiant disobedience of an injunction order of the United States court
which had been duly served upon them. It will be recalled by most of
you that if the courts had not then had power to punish for contempt
without a prior conviction by a jury--and imagine the chance of an
impartial jury-trial during the continuance of a great riot--the Debs
party would have had the city of Chicago and the great railway commerce
passing through it completely at its mercy. All who want to know the
facts and to realize the danger from the condition of affairs then
existing should read Mr. Cleveland's account of the strike in his book
on "Presidential Problems," published in 1904, and the opinion of the
Supreme Court of the United States unanimously upholding the punishment
of Debs and his associates for contempt.
The power of the courts to punish for contempt has, from the earliest
history of jurisprudence and as far back as the annals of our law
extend, "been regarded as a necessary incident and attribute of a
court, without which it could no more exist than without a judge," and
"a court without the power effectually to protect itself against the
assaults of the lawless or to enforce its orders, judgments, or decrees
against the recusant parties before it, would be a disgrace to the
legislature, and a stigma upon the age which invented it." The Supreme
Court of the United States declared in the Debs case that "this is
no technical rule. In order that a court may compel obedience to its
orders it must have the right to inquire whether there has been any
disobedience thereof. To submit the question of disobedience to another
tribunal, be it a jury or another court, would operate to deprive the
proceeding of half its efficiency."[63]
The bait now offered to the lawless and misguided among the laborers
of America by Mr. Roosevelt is the abolition of the only effective
means of preventing violence and the destruction of property in labor
disputes, first, by taking away from the courts the power to issue
injunctions and, secondly, by emasculating the power to enforce
obedience to their orders and judgments. Of course, if any such
revolutionary and anarchistic measures were now embodied in the organic
law of this state, as proposed by the Progressive state platform,
the community would be placed completely at the mercy of the violent
and the lawless. Is it not lamentable and humiliating to see an
ex-President of the United States and an ex-member of his cabinet and
ex-ambassador thus pandering to the mob spirit for votes?
In conclusion, I want to add that the American people know where
President Taft and Vice-President Sherman stand on every great question
before the people. They have been tried and not found wanting. These
candidates can be trusted and relied upon to keep every pledge of their
party's platform. If anybody can now tell where Governor Wilson stands,
except as a free trader, a radical and an opportunist, he is much
more discerning than most of us are. The glory of our party is that
for fifty-six years, in victory and in defeat, it and its candidates
have stood consistently and uncompromisingly for the principles of
human liberty and human progress. It is still the party of principle
and of progress, as it is the party of protection for American labor
and industry. President Taft would be entitled to the gratitude of
the whole nation, irrespective of party, if the only service of
his administration had been his attempt in good faith to withdraw
the tariff from party politics, to introduce some system in fixing
the amount of necessary protection to be determined by experts and
non-partisan boards, and to establish business-like methods of economy
and efficiency in every department. Great honor, too, will the future
historian record to his credit when recounting that in a period of
political upheaval, of social unrest and discontent, of impatience with
law, of pandering to revolutionary instincts, he stood as President of
the United States firmly, uncompromisingly and sturdily for the right,
and put all his trust and confidence in the sober second thought and
profound patriotism of the American people, in their attachment to law
and orderly progress, and in their determination that the American
system of constitutional representative government "shall not perish
from the earth."