Evening journal., 1902-04-07

unQuestioning allegiance to men and
ideas. that are repugnant to freemen.
In the first place we must acknowl-
edge that a majority of itself never
made anything right A thing lis true
or false, right or wrong because it is,
and majorities or minorities have
nothing to do with It. It is the pre-
sumption thqt when more people favor
a proposition than there are who op-
pose it, It is best, but this is a pre-
sumption that amounts simply to
probability. However questions Of
government must be determined I'm
some manner, and since i'm the long
run majorities are aptto represent more
truth than minorities, the principle is
accepted as a matter of expedlency.
But 1t Us accepted, not because men
do not recognize the possibility of an
erroneous verdict, but because it is
necessary 10 agree in advance that a
decision reached In a particular man
ner shall be respected. Our recogni-
tion of the principle lis strictly limited.
A particular church may have a demo-
cratic form of government, and dues
tions of policy may be settled by ma
jority vote. but The members OF that
body do not submit a Il questions of
worship and faith to a ballot in which
AL Christians shall engage. A. question
.ot principle or conduct is not to be
settled in this manner. We do not de-
eide matters of education or of science
by ballot. and il may be said in pass-
ing. that it lis as absurd TO submit a
question of finance to a popular vote.
A little examination, too. will show
that in this government by popular
WILL the principle is not in all in
stances applied. For instance. we oc-
casionally have a President whose
title is unquestioned who has not re-
ceiyed a plurality OF the votes cast. A
majority of the electoral vote may not
result from a majority Of the popular
vote. Then here in Delaware it is quite
possible to have Legislature repre-
senting a minority of the voters.
That a simple majority is not regard
ed as infallible is shown in the Jury
system which we inherited from Eng
land, and have not thought fit to
modify. No matter how trivial the
case. twelve men must Join in the
verdict; unless they do this. there isl
no verdict. Take as another example
the United States Senate Each State
has two senator's, and nhe Senate. i'm
most instances, decides questions by al
majority vote. But this is only a ma
pority of senators, without reference
to a majority of the people back of
them. The senators from a State with
10000 people have as much voice as
those of one with 100000 But ourl
Constitution has hedged the power OF
a majority in law-making in many
ways. The House may pass a bill by
an overwhelming vote, and il may be
killed in the Senate by a bare major
tty against it. If 1t passes both houses,
il may be vetoed by one man, theI
President. If the several hundred
senator's and representatives vote for
AZ eAAAN tlAt AAA0AAtAlA ttIlIAUNtEs iNtM
nine gentlemen in silk gowns may
knock it out with perfect equanimity,
and no objection will be made.
All government suggests that there
shall be an antccedent agreement die
tating the methods of arriving at con-
clusions, and within certain limits, and
with notable exceptions, majority rule
has been accepted in this government.
But it does not apply to individuals in
the exercise Of their right of the bal
lot That must be kept free and un-
trammeled; otherwise parties and gov
ernments would be the greatest Of
despotsms. The strength of our insti-
mtons lies in the right OF the indi-
yidual to vote alone if necessary, to
sustain his ideals IL is this power
which occasionally turns minorities.
into majorities, and huns the despot
from his stolen seat. Majority rule was
not intended to curtail our liberties, but
to further them