The semi-weekly messenger., 1904-11-04
Friday Nov. 4. 1904.
THE ADMINISTRATION ON TRIAL

In the North American Review 10.
November is an article by Joseph s.
Auerbach on the political issue, OF the
present campaign. 1t takes up the
charges laid at the door OF the repuoa-
can administration and discusses them
under the heading: is the Democratic /
Party Sfncere?" The article is a cold
blooded. non-partisan discussion OF
the main issue raised in the national
campaisn-the arbitrary exercise OF
power, the usurpation by the executive
of the legislative functions; unconstitu-
tionaI acts, general tendency, not alone
toward Capitalization Of power in the
general government, but toward a per
sonalization Of government in Mr..
Roosevelt. This is the issue before
the people the article says, and that II
remains with that great body or voters
who are not partisans from interest
or habit, and whose support is essen
tiaI to the success of either candidate,
10 pass upon these great questions,
submitted to them, as to a great and
Impartial jury for their verdict. AS toI
saws:
If favorable TO the republican party,
it will be an approval, or at least
cOndOnation, of acts which have been
the subject of so much heated discus
sion for the past few months and a de-
liberate acquiescence in the policy Of
that party, carried out through it's ac-
ciden;al but accredited representative
The acts of the agent, even unauthor-
lied and in excess of his delegated
powers, will then have been ratified by
the principal, and that principal Will
no longer be the republican party, bu,
the American people.
In reference to the charge of viola
ton of the constitution NY the presi-
dent, and of fixing the standard by
which should be decided the question
whether he has broken down the bar
riers of the original law defining his
rights and powers the article says:
We are not TO be misled by the plaus-
able claims that, at most the departure
from law and tradition is apparently
insignificant. In the consideration of
an unconstitutional or an indefensible
act by an executive or by a legislature,
the question is not what harm it may
do, Or how grave departure from con-
stitutiOnal principles or accepted tradi-
tion and precedent it may be or what
are the motives which prompted the
departure. The question is whether
there is any departure at all.
The writer of the magazine article
seems to have no doubt about there
having been such unconstitutional con-
duct on the part of the president,
whether innOcently or designedly done
and in support Of his position as shown
in the above quotation he makes the
following quotation from the most "a
NOUS speech OF one Of the most famous
OF American statesmen and orators. He
says:
an occasion once arose where the
president OF the United States had un-
dertaken merely to take from one of
the cabinet officers of the government
the right Of determining where fhc
public money should be deposited. and
to exercise that function himself. WeS-
ster then uttered these words:
1t was strong and forcibfy urged.
yesterday by the honorable member
from South Carolina, tnat the true and
only mode of preserving any balance
or power in mixed governments is To
keep an exact balance. This is very
true, and to this end encroachments
must be resisted at the first step. The
queStion is, therefore, whether, upon
the true principles of the constitution.
this exercise of power by the presi-
dent can be justified. Whether the
consequences be prejudicial or not. if
there be any illegal exercise of power
1t is to be resisted in the proper man.
ner. Even if no harm or Inconvenience
results from transgresSing the bounda-
ly1rr- -isnrai ie,
pass unnoticed- Every encroachment.
great or small. is important enough TO
awaken the attention of these who are
entrusted with the preservation of c
constitutional government. We are not
to wait till great public mischiefe
come, TIL the government is over
thrown, or liberty itself put into ex-
Treme jeopardy. We should not be
worthy sons OF our fathers were we so
to regard great questions affecting the
general feeling. Those fathers accom-
phshed the Revolution ON a. strict
question of principle. The parliament
OF Great Britain asserted a right to tax
the colonies in ali cases whatsoever:
and 1t was precisely on this question
that they made the Revolution turn.
The amount of taxation was trfiing
but the claim itself was inconsistent t
with liberty: and that was. in their
eyes, enough. 1t was against the re-
citaf OF an act of parliament, rather
than against any suffering under its
e0actmertS, that they took up arms.
They went to war against a preamble
They fought seven years against a
declaration. They poured out their
trea asures and their blood like water, in
a contest against an assertion which
those less sagacious and not so well
SchOoled IN the principles OF civil lib
erty would have regarded as barren
phraSeology or mere parade OF words
They saw in the claim of the British
parliament a seminal principle OF mis-
chief. the germ OF unjust power; they
detected it. dragged it forth from un-
dernea tn its plausible disguises, struck
at il; nor did it eluda either thar