The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1906-11-18

IN Europe the constitutional mon
archy has undergone a constant devel-
opment until in many countries the
king is but a fgurehead. In England
the sovereign would not think of veto
ing bill passed by the legislative body,
and tie house Of lords seldom vetoes a
Dill passed by the house of commons
me prime minister Is a much more po-
tent factor In government than the
king himself. In Denmark the govern-
ment Is brought even nearer to the
people by the substitution of one legis-
lative body for two, that body being
elected by the people under universal
suffrage. The king of Norway is even
less likely to attempt to obstruct the
viii of parliament than the king OF
England Norway has reduced mon
archy to a minimum and placed the
government in the hands of the voters
to do with 1t as they please.
In Switzerland the republican form
OF government has stood the test of ex-
pertinent. In the absence of pomp and
ceremony and official extrapa gance, the
government of Switzerland is not sur
passed, II equaied, by the government
of any similar population in the world.
Three languages are spoken within her
borders and used In parliamentary pro-
ceedings. The people are part Protes-
tant, part Catholic and part Jew. and
yet, with the initiative and the referen-
DUN in both the federal government
and the cantons. the government rests
so securely uponethe popular will that
| the people live together In entire har-
mony and could resist n much larger
population attacking from without.
The colonial system also comes un-
| der ones observation in a trip around
the world. The Netherlands have large
| 81 u, IIa1
! pelago, but they have been compelled
| to abandon the culture system-a form
of slavery-and there are signs of a po-
litical development which will some day
make It necessary for Holland TO con-
| suit the wishes of the people more than
| she has In the past.
have already spoken of both India
and Egypt in other articles, and only
! refer to the subject here in order to
draw a contrast between colonialism
as applied to Canada and colonialism
| as it is seen In India. In Canada the
people have as complete self-goyern-
ment as they have In England, the
governor general being as little likely
to use the veto power as the king him
| self. In India, on the other hand. the
natives are not consulted in regard to
the general management of the coun-
| try. Taxes are levied and collected
armies are raised, fed and directed
without regard to the wishes of the ma
tive population. They have experienced
| all of the evils that can come from a
colonial system administered by trad
ing company, and they have had a
chance to learn that a colonial system
| even when administered in such way
as to command the admiration of those
who believe I'm colonialism, still falls far
short of self government 1 have al
ready said that we have treated the
Filipinos better than England has
treated the people of India. but that
we have done so at an enormous ex-
pense to our country. 1t would be bet
ter for the Filipinos and better for us
to, recognize their right TO self-govern-
ment and independence.
<%%
After on has had a chance to see
monarchies, limited and unlimited. ar
istocracies based upon birth and ar
| istocracies based upon merit system;
after one has had a chance to compare
these systems with the republican form
of government, he is ready to declare
that from every standpoint that gov
eminent is best which rests upon the
| consent of the governed. Some have
insisted that monarchy is stronger
because all the power of the govern
made effective at once, but this advan-
tage is small when compared with the
advantages to be derived from a gov
eminent which the people support with
enthusiasm. The historian. Bancroft.
rightly declares that a republic ought
to be Tire strongest of all governments
! because, discarding the implements OF
terror, 1t dares TO build its citadel in
the hearts of men.
vantrb1ic xub4oh 10 NOT ,,,o-or,,
Dry but in fact a government of the
people, by the people and for the peo-
pie is the most enduring of govern
ments. 1t is strong because It is loved
and loved because IL is good.
Aristocracies are defended by their
advocates on the ground that the few
are wiser than the many, but this is not
true whether it is an aristocracy OF
birth or of learning, for as the whole
is greater than any of its parts. so 4
democracy must be wiser than an aris-
tocracy, because it can draw upon the
wisdom of all. The old saying, tina.
everybody knows more than anybody
is founded upon reason and experience
but there is another reason why a de-
mocracy is better than an aristocracy
namely-that the interests CT the whole
people are safer in the hands of the
people themselves than in the hands
OF any element winch assumes 10 SPEAK
for the people. The faults of free gov
rnment have been found to be- mot
in the people themselves, but in those
who, selected to represent them, betray
their trust. If the representatives OF
the people whom the people themselves
select are sometimes unfaitnful to their
:, trust, what must be expected of those
! who assume to act without being Sc
4 lected by the people?
Il In aristocracies resting upon birth
the very fact that the rulers regard
themselves superior to the masses,
makes 1t difficult for them to view
!, questions from the standpoint of tho
people at large. Whatever the form OF
the government. there will, rs Jefferson
declared always be two parties. ona
tending toward democracy and the 9TH
err tending toward aristocracy. Those
4 who have faith in the people are con-
stantly trying to make the government
Il more and more responsive to the will OF
4 the people; those who distrust the PEG.
Il pie are constantly endeavoring to In
Il crease the distance between the citizen
and his representative. In a republic
4 4hara oro Soma who arnrta size the vfr-