Potosi journal. (Potosi, Mo.) 1894-1929, 1902-01-01

because the pledge was not made
by the duly authorized parties. II
was not Official, in the sense ol
having been made by a member o1
tho committee.
In this way the party RESPONSE
biIity for the lobby in Missouri
has been very cleurly fixed. In NJ
case is the responsibility for any
legislation, either affirmative OF
negative, 4 minority responsibility
When The people, acting through
party organization, can not, by
the election of a party majority in
the legislature, serve the ends and
purposes they have had In view
and declared in tho platform Of the
party they have accredited and
commissioned to execute their will
then representative party govern
ment and government by majosi-
ties, is a confessed failure, Con-
fessed, at least, by those who set
up Il plea of majority Irresponsible
ity. Under any conditions, such
q plea would be inadvisable unless
associated with a demand for ratls-
cal changes in plan and form Of
government, such as is made BY
those who advocate the initiative
and referendum, the imperative
mandate, or other forms of direct
popular expressions. Another
singular feature of the Missouri
idea, however, is that those who
insist the most strenuously that
the system of representative go~-
is broken down, are the
same who resist sll propositions
looking to any attempt at changes.
In the same session of the Missouri
assembly, where the power of the
democratic committee and the lob
by WAS most frequently and most
illustrated, several refer
propositions were defeated
and the same men who are declar-
ing, and who had declared before
then. that any departure from re-
preventative government could no,
be tolerated or considered, are the
same who now say, and have long
said, that democratic majorities in
this state arc impotent, incoherent
and can not he held responsible for
results.
This attitude is 80 self contradic-
tory that it will be strange if it is
not understood and condemned
by the people. But "a it is clear
that the old dclusion of minority
responsibility is to be once more
tried, it is still proper to consider
the matter from that point Of view.
Assuming, then, that there is to
be, in addition to the election of Il
democratic majority to the legisla-
ture, some other cyidense fixing
the responsibility Of that party for
whatever is to done or left undone,
tho democratic leaders and man.
ayers have themselves supplied it.
They have stated, under oath, that
the representatives Of great cor
porate interests seeking or resist
ing Legislation, have opened reIa-
tions, or Il financial basis, with
the democratic state committee.
hantiing over to that body large
sum of money for campaign cx-
penses, with a view to controlling
democratic party action in the
legislature. They have sworn, al
SO, that after the convening of the
legislature, thus bought and sold
in advance, the committee mana
gers have appeared ut the state
capital, as Il part of the lobby.
and carried out in better faith with
tho corporations than with the
people they had deluded with bun
ko platforms, the pledges made in
advance of the election. All this
is clearly proved. 1t is admitted
and no longer denied.
What then, becomes of the
claim Of minority responsibility,
after such an open confession
Corporation managers are not o1
these who expect to gather grapes
of thorns or figs from thistles,
They deal with mnjori,ies only,
knowing that majorities alone are
responsible.
Their work is to get mon th.
ground floor, and if the party en
trenched there is weak ar corrupt
the doors will open to their gold
en- keys.-S,ate Republican.