The Farmington times. (Farmington, St. Francois County, Mo.) 1905-1926, 1907-06-07
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
Extract From o Speech Of Mr.. Bryan,
Delivered at Banquet at Newark,
n j., May |.

have only used the initiative aud
referendum in Switzerland Il few
times in twenty-five years.
Well, that is an argument in
favor of it, not against it. for one
of the advantages is that even after
you get these things you do not
have to use them; but il you do
not have them you frequently need
to use them. Why don't you need
to use themi Because, if the peo-
pie have the initiative, they have a
system whereby they can compel
the submission of anything they
want to vote on and when DISC
bedience is useless the representa-
tive is more sure to obey.
And if the people have the refer
endum. which is a process by which
they sit in Judgment on what their
representatives do, then the repre-
sentatives know that the people can
v, to their acts, and that if they do
pass laws that the people do not
want the people will veto them.
The beauty Of this system is that
it gives YOU power, aud yet you do
not always have to use the power;
the possession Of it is in itself Il
great protection.
And why shouldn't the people
have what they want; why should
MT the people have the veto power?
Does not your governor veto the
acts of your legislature2 And il
one man can veto an net of the
legislature, why shouldn't the peo-
pie, who elect the governor and
the legislature, have the right to
veto if they do not want n par
ticulnr law
read the other day in the New
York Tribune an' editorial on the
Oklahoma constitution, and the
great objection to it, according TO
that editor, was that it was written
by corufield lawyers-now get that
right was about to say cOrnfed
lawyers the other day, but that is
not it mean corniield lawyers
that's what it said. Now ! read
that Oklahoma constitution, and
say to YOU that it is the best con-
stiluron in the United States to T..
day. | was interested to find how
carefully those corniield lawyers
had putticd up the holes that the
trust.fed lawyers had been making
IN other constitutions. 1t was
really interesting to see how care.
fully these cornfield lawyers, look i.
ing at the question from the stand
point OF the common people, had
corrected the things that had been
found weak in the constitutions of
other States, aud the best thing in
that constitution is the provision
for the initiative aud referendum.
Now no matter what mistakes
you make in your constitution, if
you give the people power to cor
rect the mistakes they will correct
them. No matter how bad your
laws may be, if the people have the
power TO make them good they will
make them good, and the most i'm
pOrtant provision that you can
have in constitution is a provis-
ion that places in the hands of the
people power to correct the coHsti-
tuition and make it keep pace with
progress an intelligence, and the
initiative and referendum are the
best things that we have found so
far to bring the government near
to the people and make it their
government.
But you say the people make
mistakes. OF course they make
mistakes. But think the people
have the right to make their own
mistakes. Others have made mis-.
takes for them, and the people
have been denied the privilege of
correcting those mistakes. You
cannot expect to have govern.
ment that is free from mistakes.
because we are governed by human
beings and they are not perfect.
But there is this difference between
mistakes that are made by the ma
jority and mistakes that are made
by the minority.
The majority never makes n mis-
take Intentionally, for it never pays
the majority to make mistake.
Whenever the majority finds out
that it has made a mistake it cor.
reefs it, hut If you have the min
GRITTY ruling it is sometimes so
profitable for the minority to make
mistakes that they never want to
onrrept them and paarty ayor,,