Los Angeles herald., 1890-12-04
SOME COMPLEXITIES OF OUR FEDERAL
SYSTEM.

ihoSo "a VIZ PSNRiS iiNAhS ohNASi bAiO
shadow of the flag of the United States
desire the repeal of the Mckinley tariff
act, then in view of the delay which
must necessarily ensue before their de-
sire can be carried out, the question
presents itself, Is the machinery of the
federal government in accord with the
will of the vast majority of the people?
Americans are educated to the work
ing of the federal government, as well as
to that of their respective states. They
are taught to believe that it is the best
government ever devised by man, and
they believe that it is of the people, by
the people and for the people. Not
withstanding the fact that they have
prospered under it for over a century
they had it much as they wished-no
powerful neighbors to fear-it may yet
be asked. How far is their belief founded
on fact?
If it is a government by the people
and for the people, then the presi-
dent of the United States should
in all cases be elected by majority of
the people but when that happens, tits
exceptional, for under our states rights
system the states cast their votes ac-
cording to their representation in con-
gress, and in that way large minority
OF the people living in the United States
often elect the president for the major
ity. The unfairness that results from
this mode of electing the president is
illustrated thus: By the census of 1880
the population of New York was
5,OS3,6l0, whilst the joint popula
ton of the New England states,
Delaware, Florida, West Virginia and
Nevada only exceeds it by 1856. Here
we have ten states having an equal pop
ulation with New York,yet having eigh-
teen more votes in the electoral college,
and eighteen more senators than New
York. Like anomalies may be shown
with regard to Pennsylvania, which in
1880 had a population OF 4,2S2, 1856, Ohio
with 8, 1856 ,239, Illinois 3,07S,769.
During the past decade these figures
have been changed, but owing to the
admission of many new states, the CEN
sus of 1890 must show even more glaring
incongruities than the one above.
Now, beyond doubt this is all right
from the states rights point OF view.
And it may well be contended that with
time it will right itself. Yet, however
that may be, in the future, the facts
above cited show that the federal gov
ernment is not one of the people, for the
people and by the people, but that it is
one originally organized for the pro-
lection of individual sovereignties, and
continued in the lapse of time for the
benefit of the minority, at the expense
OF the majority.
But the minority not only has the
privilege of electing the president of
these United States, but the president
has the right, under our system, of veto
ing bill passed by both houses of con-
gress, and it requires a two-thirds ma
jority. in both houses to override his
veto, which is rarely or never obtained.
Who best knows the wishes of the peo-
Pile their representatives or the presi-
dent? Is this of the people, for the
people, by the people?
Again: The minority of the popula-
ton living in these United States elect
the legislatures of states, which in turn
elect the majority of the senatorial body,
and were the elected all of one mind
they could prevent the repeal of any OBJ
noxious act, it matters not whether
its repeal were favored by the president,
the lower house of congress, the vast
majority of the people and the whole
press OF the country. 1t may be said
that such contingency can never arise,
but is not one almost similar upon us ?
True, the president might veto the re-
peal OF the Mckinley tariff, could it
reach him; but what danger is there
that it ever will be presented to him for
approval? And yet we are told that
this is government Of the people for
the people by the people. On the
contrary, it is one which combines many
OF the weaknesses of the states rights
theory with the ills OF Capitalization.
1t is government of the minority, and
that minority is astute and will always
try to prevent any change.
1t can not, then, be said that the
working of the federal government is in
accord with the people. A change is de-
sired in the method of electing United
States senators, and the chances are
that, Notwithstanding our Anglo Saxon
reverence for tradition, precedent and
custom, when the change is made, we
will do away with the senate and razee
the presidency to an office purely execu-
tive. Such is practically the gov
ernment Of Great Britain and OF
her colonies, as also of France.
The will of the people, as ex-
pressed at the polls, at general
election, becomes the law of the land
upon the convening OF the next parlia-
ment. A vote of the house, in which
money bills must originate, showing
lack OF confidence in the ministry, forces
an appeal to the country. Ii the
country endorses the vote of the house
OF commons, then the ministry resigns,
and another ministry, in accord with
the people, assumes the reigns OF gov
ernment.