The Washington times., 1906-02-06
Mr.. Littlefield'S Position.

The Gatling-gun oratory Of the
Hon. Charles Z Littlefeld of Maine
is always interesting and sometimes
convincing, as his argument is al
ways vigorous and sometimes logi-
cal. Ii is just possible that Mr.. Lit
tlefield, in his enjoyment of the
sensation of standing alone and feel
ing independent, sometimes sacri-
fees reason and logic.
Yesterday was one of the occa-
sions when he could fairly have
been accused of this. He made what
was widely accepted as a great
speech against the rate regulation
bill; but his oratorical and argu-
mentative basis was an indictment
of free institutions. an expression of
doubt whether the public opinion of
the country may safely be trusted
TO determine public politics.
In substance. Mr.. Littlefeld argued
that II is dangerous to give the Inter
state Commission power over rates.
because the commission is a political
body, which may be reorganized
whenever President thinks de-
sirable. Mr.. Littlefield regarded this
as dangerous. For. he argued. if in
the heat and hatreds engendered bv
appeals to class feeling, too radi-
cal President should be elected. he
might reorganize the commission to
meet his own radical views, and then
set II at work 10 enforce this law in
such fashion as would give his Ad-
ministratiOh the power of life or
death over the industries of the na-
tion. This might, Mr.. LittlefeId
feared, win applause and power and
Endorsement from the inflamed popu-
lace, but 1t would be subversive of
our institutions and ruinous TO prom
erty rights. For Mr.. LittIefield's
argument led relentlessIy up to the
suggestion of substantial confsca-
ton Of railroad properties through
operation of the Tate-making power.
The eminent gentleman from Maine
went so far as to describe the sort
of President who could be equal to
inaugurating such a revolutionary
policy; and, while he named no
names, he made plain that he had
in mind a certain gentleman. much
in the public eye just now. whose
recent candidacy for a great Office
developed strength that evidently
deeply impressed Mr.. LfttlefeId with
the possibility of mob rule in this
nation.
We had supposed that even New
England had by this time recovered
from its fears of confiscation bv
popular clamor That Question is
commonly supposed to have been
settled by the overwhelming votes
in 1896 and 1900 in favor OF sus-
taining national honor and credit
and property rights Confiscation bv
commission, under the championship
of a President elected by the peopIe.
Is not likely 10 be perpetrated by the
American people. 1t could not be
without first destroying or subvert-
ing the judicial branch Of the Gov
ernment- It never will be, and no.
body believes it ever will be. The
man who argues that there is serious
danger of it is simply arguing that
popular government is a failure and
popular institutions a menace.
Mr. Littlefield is especially fearful
of the radicalism of the West. His
fears are unfounded He should
know that the great Middle West
stood as firmly for national faith
and honor and property rights in
1896 and 1900 as did New England
He will always find it safely on that
side of the argument. And in the
long run little Will be gained bv
giving voice TO suspicious against
the good faith OF the whole people