The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-19
THE MAJORITY,

summarized the whole form |
and theory of our government, when he
spoke of it as 1.-THE government OF the peo-
" pie, by the people, and for the people"
This is the whole there Is of it. The theo-
ry of our institutions could not be more
concsely expressed elaboration could not
make il more plain The revolution was
fought to achieve this kind of govern
ment the war for the suppression of the
rebellion was fought to preserve 1t. 1t be
longs to us-the people-as President Lin
coin then and there said, to see to it that
those who gave up their lives al Gcttys-
burg "shall not have died in vain" and
that such gov eminent Of, by and for the
people "shall not perish from the earth"
The people are sovereign they must con-
troll nominations and elections to office, or
what hope is there for our liberties, or the
preservation of the government But who
are the people, in the sense used by Abra-
ham Lincoln We apprehcud that he uses
it in two different senses, although one in
cludcs the other, on the principle that the
whole is greater than, and includes, the part.
When he speaks of a government "for the
people, he means all classes, ages and
sexes because the government is equally
for the protection and we'll being of every
one residing within its territorial limits,
whether man. woman or child.
When, however, he speaks of govern
meat of the people" and ''by the people,
the term is used in Il more limited yscnsc.
Whether rightfuly or wrongfully, woman
is excluded from all participation in poll
tics or the governmcnt-except in contrib
uting to its support. She can neither take
part in political nominating convention,
vote at an election or hold office. SO, too,
with males under the age of twenty ono
years. |, is evident, then, that the term
''peopc' when used in this connection has
limited meaning referring only to legal
voters 1t is still further limited. In theory
the people, in this limited sense, partici-
pate in governmental affairs. They attend
the primaries are represented in nominal
ing conventions are eligible to, and have
seats in, the state and national legislatures
are entitled to be, and are, elected to all
other offices, both state and national and
all have the right and privilege and gener-
ally exercise the right, of voting. But the
'pcoplc' do not all think alike. This is
first shown BY the division of the people in
to parties. After parties are formed, it is
again shown by difference in opinion in
reference to particular measures of policy,
as, also, as to proper candidates for Office.
When, therefore, the people" are thus
spoken of, reference is evidently made to
the majority of the people. The majority
govern and the minority must submit. We
have said this much because complaint is
made that the farmers captured" the New
Hampshire state republican convention.
Captured" is an ugly word and was intcn-
ded as such. If the farmers controlled that
convention, who had better right? Which
is the safer, the wiser and better course
that the farmers should control politicians,
or politicians control the farmers. Is it
not the dawning Of better day. return
TO republican simplicity when the farmers
the very bone, sinew and intelligence of
the land-take an interest in politics, at
tend caucuses and nominating conventions,
and demand to be recognized as part of
the people, and a controlling part too.
What is all this outcry against the farm
ers, the ''patrons of hnsbandry,' and the
course of New Hampshire politics? Sim
ply this. 1t is charged-and we will not
stop to inquire into the truth or talsity of
the charge, because it is of no possible con-
sequence-that the republican farmers of
else their rights as freemcn. 1t is more
over, claimed that more or less of them
were members of the "patrons of husband
ry." Has il then come to this, in free
America, that farmer has no political
rights, that because, in the exercise of an
undoubted and unqucstionabc right, a
farmer sees fit to ally himself with the
''patrons of husbandry,' or any other Or
ganization, he is thereby DISTINGUISHED
This seems to be the argument and the
whole of it. Bearing in mind that in the
United States, and in every individual
state forming the Union, the people are
sovereign, that both state and national gov
ernments are governments of the people
and by the people, and that the majority
Il
who has better right to exercise con-
trolling influence in politics than the farm
er? Look at New Hampshire. In the
presidential election of last year-whcn it
is supposed that full vote would he
polled-the entire vote, of all parties, was
siXty-eight thousand eight hundred and
nincty-threc. These are the official re-
turns. Turn now to the report of the cen
sus for the year 1870. The number of
males occupied in farming pursuits-that
is farmers, including those laboring on
farms, whose interests are entirely con-
nectcd with farming-is placed at forty-six
thousand five hundred and sixty.two, or
more than two-thrds of the whole number
Of votes polled in the state. Must these
farmers, two-thirls of the voters of the
state, stay at home and allow such of the
remaining one third, as desire, to run the
political machine? This is the PROPOSE
ton, the desire, the argument all that
there is of it. Will the farmers submit to
it, will any reasonable man desire it; can
any one, save wire pulling, self-seeking
politician, hope for and claim it The ar
gument is still stronger in Vermont, but we
must defer the consideration thereof to n
future time. For one, we are glad to see
the farmers awake from their lethargy and
take that position in politics for which
their numbers, their intelligence and their
studies so well fit them. Farmers have,
heretofore, furnished Vermont with gov