Willmar tribune. [volume] (Willmar, Minn.) 1895-1931, 1903-04-18
LAW MAKERS vs.. LAW ENFoRcERs.

LAW MAKERS vs.. LAW ENFoRcERs.
The ease with which the plutocrats
manage to elect the majority of the
lawmaking bodies, while popular at
tention is riveted on the chief executive
Office shows the necessity Of q new
system whereby the people can more
directly influence legislation.
The republican party in 1900 de-
clared in favor of reciprocity as q
means of extending our foreign trade
and reducing the tariff without hurting
the country at large. The president
elected at that time in his last speech
advocated this policy strongly. His
successor took up the advocacy of it.
But In spite of the promises of the
party and the urging of the executive
congress has persistently refused to
carry out the wishes of the people as
expressed in the endorsement of the
platform at the election. The protect
ed industries had looked after the
election of congressman not in SYM
pathy with their party platform.
The election ia Minnesota last fall
shows the same result. The republic
can party fought the battle on an anti
merger 8 Ne Their candidate for
governor received q tremendous ma
jority. But in spite of this overwhelm-
ing sentiment of the people against the
merger q legislature was elected at the
same election two-thirds of which at
the first opportunity voted for man
who was openly declared to be the
candidate of the merger element.
Under the system of dividing up the
country in small election districts for
the election of lawmakers, while the
country as whole elects executives it
is possible to have the vast majority
OF the people vote for a certain meas
ure and yet have congress elected in
which the majority will be opposed to
that measure. The advocate of that
measure might in one district receive
majority of twenty thousand, while
in another part of the country two men
might be elected, each with majority
of one, and the minority thus have
majority in congress-.
Again, a man might declare himself
In favor of the measure and be elected.
Knowing that the people have no
means of controlling him, he can then
sell out to the opposition and vote to
defeat the measure. The people will
OF course have a chance to punish him
at the next election, but the plutocrats
will make it alright for him anyway.
These difficulties in the way of pop
ular government are removed by the
initiative and referendum system of
Under that the people
have a right to force the lawn aking
body to take action and can veto any
measure obnoxious to them. Under
that system there can be no govern
ment OF the minority nor disregard of
promises made to secure an election.
The people may not always decide
wisely. Humanity is always liable to
err in judgment. But the people would
have at hand the means of correcting
a mistake.
Then, too, there would be less of
partisan spirit in deciding on any
measure. There would ha M ,nartv
appellation attached to the PROPOSE
ton, and the voter would have to use
his individual Judgment. This would
have tendency to educate him into
thinking for himself about political
questions, and the more Independent
thinkers we have in the nation the bet
ter of we will be.
The opponents of this system make
great deal OF the fact that in many
instances measures now submitted to