New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-09-17
POPULAR GOVERNMENT AND NULLIFL-

CdTIOM
Congressman Oates, of Alabama, who was
one Of the most conspicuous leaders III that
Democratic tlibustering in the last Congress by
which the majority was repeatedly deprived Oh
it's right to legslate, gIaciOusly announces that
the minority this winter Will be reasonable and
decent, provided the Republican majority " acts
fair and square" But if the Republicans " at
tempt to ride rough shod" which Mr.. Oates
explains by saying, if they attempt to so alter
the rules that measure can be taken up by
less than a two-thrds vote /" the Democrats
will fight back" Mr.. Oates says distinctly:
al am opposed to a bare majority having that
power. When a majority is OIL and the NIL
noIity 100, the minority is as apt to be in the
right as the majority" This statement of Dem
ocratic opinion and purpose illustrates very
clearly the issue which is likely to arise between
parties
The ground of opposition to this Democratic
theory is not merely that the majority is more
likely to be right than the minority, but that
something must be done in order to carry on
the Government and TO serve the public IN
terests The people have intrusted to the ma
jority, however small, and not to the minority,
the responsibility of determining what shall be
DONE 1t is still the Democratic theory, as 1t
was in 1860 that the decision OF the people
may be nullifed by minority whenever IL
pleases 1t is still the Republican theory, as 1t
was in 1850, that the decision of the people
must be respected and obeyed, because in no
other way can sef-government be made sue
cess: in no other way can the interests of the
people be served and the wisdom of their
wishes tested by experience.
Thus The TRIBUNE was strictly and sci
entiticaly correct in describing Mr. Oates ana
his associates as unreconStructed rebels who
resorted to revolutionary means to defeat gov
eminent of the people. Democracy does not
trust the people, does not believe in the peoples
intelligence or honesty, relies for success upon
popular ignorance and shallow falSehood, or
upon DOpular selfishneSs and measures of dis
honesty. When beaten, it has no hesltatlop
in resorting to notification of the peoples de-
cision, because it neither respects nor is loyal
to the sovereign power in this country.
A majority, whether large or small, often
bIunders. That is not a reason for defeating
the vail of majority by revolutionary means
in a country where majority government Is the
only government possible. Unless majority
can rule, nothing can be done. Paralysis OF
the majority is legislative anarchy. Measures
and methods which deprive the majority OF It's
right to decide what shall be done are strictly
revolutionary, for they block the wheels Of
government They mean that nothing shall
be done, and the work of governing shall stop,
unless the minority can have its way. The
right of temporary resistance to measure, long
enough to arouse public opinion and bring 1t to
bear upon a majority, is not here in question:
for it is with no such limitation or purpose that
Mr.. Oates proposes resistance, and with no
such limitation or purpose that Democrats In
the House have repeatedly stopped all legisla
tion in order to defeat measures they did not
like.
The Republicans have been intruSted with
responsibility for legislation during the next
two wears, and cannot meet that responsibility
honestly without claiming and exercising the
power of majority to take up such measures
as il NAV desire. The only objection that can
reasonably be raised to this power is that an
accidental majority in a thin House might rush
through important measures not sustained by
the popular will. Against such action there is
always defence. A minority can at any time
make ii necessary for the majority to have
present a quorum of the body, and thus TO
prove that representatives of a majority of the
people, upon their responsibility as such, de-
eide that measure shall be taken up or shall
be passed. Beyond that point the Democrats
have no more right to resist majority than
they had to resist the election Of Abraham
Lincoln in 1860. Nor have they any more
right to resist such modification Of the rules
that majority shall be able to discharge the
duties intrusted to it by the people.