Back to the Republic/Chapter6
Chapter VI
DANGEROUS EXPERIMENTS
ALL variations from a strict and literal adherence to the plan and form of government provided by the Constitution have been dangerous experiments to this country and mischievous in their influence upon the world, and every evil from which we suffer governmentally today can be traced directly to a departure from the Constitution.
Our most serious departure and variance from the standard form of government was begun when the people of the various States failed to follow the plan of the Federal Constitution and included in their constitutions material that properly should have been statutory enactments, and when they provided in the State constitutions for the election of officials other than the executive and members of the legislative body.
The election of any official by popular vote, aside from the executive and members of the legislative body, is a violation and a dangerous experiment which has brought disastrous results throughout the States. The moment that the people take it upon themselves to elect heads of departments and officials other than the executive and members of the legislative body, they release the executive and legislative body from full responsibility for the quality of public service. It has been done to some extent in all of the States and was the first fatal step in merging the State governments, from republics, as guaranteed by the Constitution, toward democracies, resulting in useless expenditures, excessive legislation and chaotic administration.
How long do you think this government would have lasted if the Constitution had provided for the election of the judges of the Federal courts, or for the election of members of the Cabinet who serve as heads of departments?
That departure and experiment is responsible for all forms of the long ballot instead of the short ballot provided for by the Constitution and for which we are now clamoring, while at the same time making it impossible; responsible for the expenditure of billions of dollars in money, and responsible for our having now aid having had since the time of our departure from the constitutional plan much less competent men in the public service than if we had adhered to the standard form and permitted the executive and legislative body in the State, county and city to appoint the judiciary and all other officials.
It is a gross error to provide for the election of judges under any form of government. There is no issue that a candidate for judge can raise in a campaign. The very name of the office means that he is to decide matters in accordance with the law and the evidence.
Our Federal judiciary, which is appointed, has been much better and stronger than it would have been had the Constitution provided for its election. As a proof of this, several States where the judiciary is appointed have a higher grade of judges who do a much better quality of work than is done in States where judges are elected.
Why should an aspirant for attorney general go before the people and discuss the kind of opinions that will be rendered? Opinions should and must be based upon the law and facts.
Why should a candidate for State, county or city treasurer go before the people and discuss the custody of public funds? It is a self-evident proposition that public funds should be accounted for honestly.
Why should a candidate for auditor, clerk or recorder go before the people and discuss how accounts or records will be kept? There is only one way to keep records, and that is accurately.
Why should a candidate for prosecuting attorney, or sheriff, or county coroner make a campaign? These officials are generally placed under obligations during the campaign that lessen the efficiency of their service after election.
The appointment of every board that has ever been named since the Constitution was adopted marks a departure from the standard form of government and a dangerous experiment, and the existence of all boards has served merely to increase expenses, lessen the efficiency of public service and confuse the administration of government.
Alexander Hamilton, to whom we owe more than to any other single individual for the standard form of government, and to whom the world owes more than to any one else for enlightenment in the field of political science, sounded a warning note when this dangerous experiment was first instituted in this country. He said:
"Lately Congress . . . have gone into the measure of appointing boards, but this, in my opinion, is a bad plan."
All commissions that have been appointed since the Constitution was adopted were departures and dangerous experiments, and their existence has resulted in the expenditure and waste of billions of dollars, lessened the efficiency of public service, and confused governmental procedure.
Abraham Lincoln, to whom we owe more than to any other single individual for the preservation of the republic, expressed in no uncertain terms his opinion of boards and commissions. Just before Lincoln started for the Ford Theater, on the night of his assassination, Mr. Ashmun, who had presided over the convention of 1860, in which Lincoln was nominated for President, called at the White House. He told Mr. Lincoln that he still had the gavel which he had wielded in that convention, and after a few moments' conversation, he said: "Mr. Lincoln, I am interested in a cotton claim, and I want you to appoint a commission to investigate the matter and report." Lincoln replied, with so much earnestness and warmth that he afterwards apologized to Mr. Ashmun for his abrupt manner:
"Ashmun, I have done with commissions. I think they are contrivances to cheat the government."
I am glad that Lincoln uttered those words in the very ripeness of his experience, the maturity of his judgment and the fullness of his wisdom. It was Lincoln's last expression concerning government, and I think by far the most important of all his great utterances. Would that these words might be displayed all over the world in letters of gold by day and with moving electric lights by night as the last solemn warning of the mighty Lincoln against the wholesale appointment of commissions, which is one of the evil tendencies of the present time.
As people come to know that Lincoln spoke those words and come to understand the full purport of their meaning, the spirit of the great Emancipator will live on, freeing the world from a dangerous experiment that is weakening the effectiveness of our government and undermining the efficiency of other governments throughout the world.
It would take many large volumes to review the expenditures and failures of the various boards and commissions that are gradually wrecking the republic.
The Inter-State Commerce Commission was heralded as an innovation that was to do great things. Its net result has been the expenditure of millions of dollars wastefully while it made unreasonable rulings that retarded the extension of railroad tracks and the building of cars, so that today the service does not meet the demand. Several roads have been wrecked and innocent investors have lost their money. Confidence has been shaken in railroad securities so that they are a drug upon the market, and now the same agitators and newspapers who were clamoring for control, destruction and punishment of the railroads are asking that their rates be increased, that they be given a chance, that they actually receive charitable assistance from the government.
In this great war crisis commissions are being added and multiplied instead of subtracted and divided as they should be. It was the purpose of the Constitution that all governmental work aside from the legislative and judicial branches should be performed by heads of departments and their subordinates, and that we should be represented abroad by ambassadors, ministers or consuls.
When Franklin went to France in the early days, he went alone as an ambassador with a definite message, that of soliciting military and financial aid from France. When he had made his appeal to the French government he secured favorable action. I want to ask you, dear reader, what you think the result would have been if Franklin had been serving on a commission of five or more men and they had all gone together, and after he had finished making his appeal he had then said: "We have with us also Mr. Brown, who will now present the matter." Mr. Brown in presenting the matter would doubtless have made some variance from Franklin's presentation. If, when Mr. Brown had finished, he had then said: "We have with us Mr. Jones, who will now present the matter," Mr. Jones would doubtless have made some variance in his presentation between that of Mr. Franklin and Mr. Brown. If, after Mr. Jones had finished, he had then said: "We have also with us Mr. Smith, who will present the matter," Mr. Smith doubtless would have made some variance from the other three. If, when Mr. Smith had finished, he had then said: "We have also with us Mr. White, who will now present the matter," Mr. White would no doubt make some variance from the presentations of the other four.
Don't you think the officials of France would have been somewhat confused at the close of the presentations and would have suggested that the commission return to America and they would think the matter over? Upon a comparison of the variances in the several presentations they would conclude that it would perhaps be better to do nothing, or to have another session at some future time, and we would have had the privilege of paying the salaries and expenses of five without securing the desired result. In addition, there would have been the danger that each man, in his ambition to be the big man on the commission, would feel the necessity of slightly discrediting the other four.
This is one of many illustrations that might be given, and the pity is we are growing worse instead of better in this regard.
Suppose that when President Wilson called Elihu Root to Washington and asked him to go on a commission with Russell, who had been assaulting our institutions for many years, and other men who had no concept of the meaning of a republic, Mr. Root had said: "Mr. President, I am seventy-two years old and willing to undertake this hazardous journey, but if I go, I must go alone as an ambassador, as Franklin went to France, and I must go with a definite message that must have your approval before I start, and no interference after I leave. That message will be the Constitution of the United States translated into the Russian language. Upon my arrival I will ask that the Constitution be read in the Russian language to those who are assembled to consider the new government for Russia. After the reading of the Constitution, I will ask for an interpreter, through whom I will say that this Constitution provided for the first form of government that ever worked well, and that, if they wish to utilize its teachings in working out their problems, I will be glad to be of such service as I can; if not, that I will return home, leaving that definite message with them to make use of when they have exhausted the dangerous experiments in which they are engaged."
That would have sounded a clear note, and if Mr. Root had gone under those conditions, he would have given Russia a clear, definite and constructive message. But instead we sent a large commission, at great expense, without a definite message, and the result is, to say the least, extremely unsatisfactory.
The judgment displayed in sending Root and Russell together on a governmental mission was as unsound as it would have been to send Dwight L. Moody and Bob Ingersoll together to put on an evangelistic campaign, or to have sent Jim Hill and Eugene V. Debs together to manage the construction of a railway system.
All so-called efficiency commissions with which I am familiar—and I have had years of experience in the public service—remind me of the ironical definition given by Job Hedges, that "efficiency is letting some one else run your business as they want to at your expense." Efficiency, like the word liberty, has been overworked by impostors.
Civil service commissions were heralded as agencies that would usher in the millennium of efficient governmental service, but the result of their work has been quite largely to fasten upon the payroll hundreds of employes who contribute little to the public service and many of whom are guilty of indifference and insubordination. Those who have rendered good service would have done so without the protection of a civil service commission. These commissions may well be defined as plagues on the body politic which disseminate the germ that produces the tired feeling.
During the first forty years of this republic, when there were no civil service commissions, public–service appointees (except those with specified limit of tenure) were retained during good behavior. So rarely were they removed that there was a total of less than one hundred changes during the forty years prior to the administration of Andrew Jackson. He was inoculated with the spirit of democracy and the characteristics of the demagogue. So slight was his conception of the plan and purpose of the republic that he arbitrarily dismissed hundreds of faithful, well equipped public–service appointees and replaced them with his personal followers without regard to fitness or the public welfare.
The executive and the members of the legislative body, who are held responsible for the quality of public service during their term of office, should have the power to designate who the public–service employes should be. Therefore the people should exercise the greatest care in selecting those who shall have the appointive power.
In our great industrial institutions it does not follow that a change of administration is followed by a wholesale dismissal of the employes of those institutions. On the contrary, comparatively few changes occur. It is interesting to note how closely the republic corresponds in operation to the corporation. In a corporation there are an executive and a board of directors, who, working together, have all power of appointment, all power of making regulations and all power of financing.
The great proportion of our ablest men during recent years have entered the business world, where they have been more or less indifferent to the affairs of government. This great crisis, however, has aroused them to splendid coöperation, and they are now thinking about patriotism and public service.
I would like to ask the business men what would happen to their institutions if, instead of sending out salesmen with a definite purpose of selling goods, they should send out, to visit their customers, commissions without any definite purpose, who nevertheless were guaranteed large salaries and liberal expense accounts.
Would it be wise for business men to submit to the popular vote of the men in the factory the question as to whether or not an additional building should be added to the plant?
What would happen if they made it a custom, after the appointment of a master mechanic or head of a department, to take a referendum vote of the employes and the stockholders as to whether or not he should retain his position?
There has been a disposition on the part of a large percentage of employes to encourage departures from the republic; to try to coerce candidates into making pledges before election; to try to influence legislation by threatening to throw the union vote against a representative who is trying to be fair in the enactment of laws.
Any effort toward class legislation or class division is an appeal to passion, prejudice or cupidity. It is the work of demagogues, be they labor leaders, politicians or so–called social–justice reformers. The spirit of a republic is to recognize the equality of all before the law.
Unions have a right to organize and fix a scale of wages, and my sympathy is with them, so long as they do not molest the rights of persons or the rights of property, but they have no right to destroy property or to do bodily harm to prevent individuals from working where they please, when they please, and for what they please.
Much credit for increasing wages has been given labor leaders and unions which they do not deserve.
The price of eggs has advanced as rapidly as wages have increased, but the hens have no unions. The prices of milk, butter and cheese have advanced as rapidly as wages have increased, but the milch cows have no unions. The price of clothing has advanced as rapidly as wages have increased, but cotton and wool have no unions. We have simply lessened the purchasing power of the dollar through the inflation of values. The law of supply and demand is sure to work, because it was divinely made, and it is as certain as the law of gravitation, the law of growth or the law of life.
Employes should remember that the republic was the first form of government that gave labor a chance. The worst year for labor in the United States was better than the best year for labor in any other country in the history of the world. The republic was the first form of government that made it possible for the section hand to become president of a railroad, a clerk to become president of a bank, a farm boy to become Governor of his State, a rail-splitter to become President of the republic; not because he was a clerk, a section hand, a farm boy or a rail-splitter, but because he developed body, mind and character sufficient to make him worthy of such responsibility.
All employes in this country, for their own sake and the good of posterity, should uphold the rights of person and the rights of property as sacred.
Women who are taking on the added duties of citizenship should be the last to encourage departures from the republic. As one who has consistently championed the cause of equal suffrage for twenty-four years and did it fearlessly when it was less popular than now, I have been chagrined during recent years at the manner in which some women have urged dangerous experiments and applauded the fallacies of the flattering demagogue. Women should remember that the republic was the first form of government under which they were permitted to enter colleges and universities and enjoy the rights of property and the rights of person.
Excessive and foolish legislation will not bring the millennium, nor can the government successfully assume the functions of the home, the school or the church. Women should be less active in mischievous agitation and strive for a better understanding of the Constitution, the meaning of a republic and the purposes of the founders of this government.
I would like to ask the educators in our colleges and universities a few questions.
Would it be wise for the president and trustees, after they had appointed the heads of departments and the members of the faculty, to call in a dictator or a commission to determine what courses of study should be pursued by the student body?
What effect would it have on discipline in the university if it were provided that the student body could take a referendum vote to determine the question as to whether or not a regularly appointed instructor should retain his position or be recalled?
Would it be advisable to allow the students to take up through the initiative the question of whether or not they should pay tuition?
What would be the result of such procedure in our educational institutions?
Consideration of these questions suggests analogies to what is happening in the administration of government through the appointment of boards and commissions, the initiative, referendum, recall, government ownership, socialistic doctrines and anarchistic heresies—all dangerous weapons in the hands of demagogues for mischief–making.
Lincoln gave a very good definition of boards and commissions when he said: "I think they are contrivances to cheat the government."
Socialism is that phase of democracy which negates property rights.
Anarchy is that phase of democracy which negates law.
The initiative is that phase of democracy which makes it possible for the infuriated mob, under the leadership of the demagogue, to enact legislation.
The referendum is that phase of democracy which assumes that the minority should rescind impulsively at a special election the deliberate action of the majority at a regular election.
The judicial recall is that phase of democracy which makes it possible to take a case from the courtroom, where it may be decided in accordance with the law and the evidence, to the street-corners, where the agitators may appeal to passion and prejudice.
Government ownership is that phase of democracy which assumes that government should not mind its own business.
We should at once abandon all of these dangerous experiments by discharging every board and commission that has been created and by repealing all statutory enactments that have provided for the initiative, referendum and recall in any of the several States. We should avoid the dangers of socialism and anarchy and government ownership as perils that threaten to shake the very foundation of the republic.
The thought that I wish to make clear is that our national government has grown weaker, more inefficient, more ineffective, more chaotic and more wasteful of public money than it otherwise might have been, just in proportion as through the creation of boards, commissions, dictators, excess legislation, etc., we have departed from and failed to adhere strictly and literally to the standard form, the golden mean, the republic.
Our State governments are weaker, more inefficient, more ineffective, more chaotic and more wasteful of public funds than they otherwise might have been, just in proportion as they have failed to adopt the standard form or have failed to require that it be strictly and literally adhered to, instead of putting statutory material into our State constitutions providing for the election of officials other than the executive and members of the legislative body, appointing boards and commissions, and creating other agencies that merely result in increasing expenses and confusing governmental procedure.
Our county and city governments are weaker, more inefficient, more ineffective, more chaotic and more wasteful of public funds than they otherwise might have been, just in proportion as the State governments have failed to provide for them the standard form and to require that it be strictly and literally adhered to.
All foreign governments are weaker, more inefficient, more ineffective, more chaotic and more wasteful of public funds than they otherwise might have been, just in proportion as they have failed to comprehend and adapt the standard form to their governments and to require that it be strictly and literally adhered to.
All minor political divisions of all foreign countries are weaker, more inefficient, more ineffective, more chaotic and more wasteful of public funds than they otherwise might have been, just in proportion as foreign governments have failed to provide the standard form and to require that it be strictly and literally adhered to.
Unfortunately, a very large proportion of our public officials during the past twenty-five years have been demagogues who have had little concept of the meaning of a republic. They have substituted personality for principle, preachments for practice, pretense for performance, agitation for achievement, invective for ingenuity, experiment for execution, rashness for restraint, rhetoric for results, and coercion for the Constitution.
Why not open our eyes to these self-evident truths, stop electing demagogues to public office and avoid the quicksands, whirlpools and precipices of dangerous experiments?