The river press. [volume] (Fort Benton, Mont.) 1880-current, 1912-04-10
LET PEOPLE RULE
SAYS ROOSEVELT
Opposes Presidents Attitude on
i Popular Government
PEOPLES VOICE MUST PREVAIL

@~ ~
cheered for Speech In Opening Active
Campaign for Observation-Disclosures
Taft az Opposed to the Majority.
Stands Squareiy on His Columbus
CO., Address.
The salient passages in Colonel
R~oosevelts forceful campaign speech,
delivered in Carnegie Hall, New York.
Wednesday evening, are given below:
The great fundamental issue now
before the Republican party and be-
fore u people can be stated briefly.
It is. are the American people fit to
govern themselves, to rule themselves.
to control themselves?
I believe they are. My opponents do
not. l believe in the right of the peo-
pie to rule. l believe that the majority
Of the plain people Of the United
States will and do, day in day out,
make fewer mistakes in governing
themselves than any similar class or
body of men, no matter what their
training, will make in trying to gov
ern them. l believe the American peo-
pie as a whole are capable of self con-
troll and of learning by mistakes. Our
opponents pay lip loyalty to this doc
trine, but they show their real beliefs
by the way in which they champion
every device to make the nominal
rule of the people a sham.
I have scant patience with this talk
of the tyranny of the majority. When
ever there Is tyranny Of the majority
I shall protest against it with all my
heart and soul. But we are today suf.
fering from the tyranny of the minor
tiles. 1t is a small minority that is
grabbing our coal deposits, our water
powers and Jul harbor fronts. A small
minority is fattening on the sale Of
adulterated foods and drugs. 1t is a
small minority that lies behind
monopolies and trusts. 1t is a small
minority that stands behind the pres
ent law of master and servant, the
sweatshops and the whole calendar of
social and industrial injustice. 1t is a
0A101 ulAA4OAlCy ludI 10 IOudy u9IA6
our convention system to defeat the
will of a majority of the people in the
choice of delegates to the Chicago cor
vention.
My opponents charge that two
things In my program are wrong be-
cause they intrude into the sanctuary
of the judiciary.
The first is the recall of judges and
the second the review by the people
OF judicial decisions on certain excep-
tional questions. I have said again
and again that l do not advocate the
recall of judges in all states and in
all communities. The integrity of our
judges, from Chief Justice Marshall
to White and Holmes-and to Cullen
and many others in our state-is a
dne page Of American history. But
I say 1t soberly-democracy has a
right to approach the sanctuary of
the courts where a special interest
has corruptly found sanctuary to, and
this Ia exactly what has happened in
some of the states where the recall of
the judges Ia a living issue. Is it not
equally plain that the question wheth-
Or a given policy is for the public
good is not of a judicial nature, but
should DO settled by the legislature or,
In the final instance. by the people
themselves?
The president of the United States,
MI. Taft, devoted most of a recent
speech to criticism of this proposition.
In cova $hot tif 10 rtfor1v without
merit or utility and, instead OF being
in the interest of all the people and
Of the stability of popular government,
IL sowing the seeds of confusion and
tyranny" BY this he of course meant
the tyranny Of the majority-that is
tho tyranny Of the American people
a. a whole. He also says that my
proposal (Which, a. he rightly sees it,
10 merely a proposal to give the people
q real instead of only a nominal
chance to construe and amend legis
lation with reasonable rapidity), would
make such amendment and interpreta
ton depend on the feverish, uncer
tain and unstable determination oil
successive votes on different laws by
SVA1RVl Oh anu NAuA6AA6 AI0JOAAtACSS
and that 1T lays the axe at the foot
Of the tree Of well ordered freedom
and subjects the guarantees of life
liberty and property without remedy
to the dtful impulse of a temporary
majority OF an electorate"
This criticism 10 really less a criti
eism of my proposal than a criticism
Of all popular government. 1t Il
wholly unfounded, unless 1t 10 found
ID on the belief that the people ar,
fundamentally untrustworthy. This l,
the question that I propose to submit
to the people. How can the prevail
ing morality or q preponderance opin
ion DO better and more exactly ascer
tanned than by = vote Of the people?
Tho people must know better thar
the court what their own morality ant
their own opinion is. l ask that 20,
here. YOU and others like YOU. YOU tn,