Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1912-08-20
Ey Bishop
w. 4. Gambler

such expenditures they would regard
as productive investments. They
would lay hands on the processes Of
both the production and distribution
of wealth, so as TO win the votes Of
the ever-numerous classes of the indo-
lent and thriftless, and they would
claim benevolence as the motive or
the schemes by which they skillfully
purchased the favour of the proleta-
Tiat. Such cant phrases as social
justice, "a. square deal for every
man.. civic righteousness and the
like, would become the shibboleths Of
the political Pharisees while they fat
tened by devouTing the nation and
flourished by persistent pretences of
righteousness affected for the uses
of the market-place only. Men who
lead revolutions, whether openly or
furtively, always promise material
good to the. multitude. Socialistic
schemes are the bats by which ma
tons have always been lured to the
subversion of their institutions and
beguiled to THEW own enslavement.
Equally with proposals to violate
the constitution surreptitiously by
executive, legislative, and judicial
usurpation of power, is the PROPOSE
A constitution being the embodiment
of fixed principles, little subject to
change in any particular and in most
particulars as Interchangeable as etern-
al right, ought not to be susceptible
of too easy amendment. A process
of easy amendment reduces a consti-
tuition to the level of an ordinary
statute. Such ought not to be the
case. When a people frame a consti-
tuition 1t is agreed by them that
there are some things so settled that
they may not be readily changed, and
they thus covenant, all with each and
each with all. that these fixed prin-
ciples shall be held inviolable. 1t
amounts to 4nfdelity to sacred
pledges when such an instrument is
set aside hastily and carelessly.
At what point is our national con-
stitution hindering any real or wor-
thy progress? Why should it be-
come the object of attack? Is social
ism so desirable and settled govern
ment so evil that we should be asked
to overthrow the structure of our
federal system in order to make way
for the visionary schemes of pas
sionate reformers or to crafty the
aspirations of inordinate ambition?
Let us be sure that when we break
settled principles of government and
fundamental morals, we are not pro-
gressives advancing toward a blessed
industrial millennium, but prodigals
sqUandering a great inheritance, and
that we will soon find ourselves in
dire restitution amid a famine in a
region of life far from any real good.
a conspicuous man, protesting to
be an authoritative exponent of
, certain picturesque movement, issued
from Chicago a few days ago a state
ment in which he said that our gov
eminent was too solid, and that il
was proposed to "liquify" the con-
stitution. That word is exact. even
though it express a shameless pur-
pose. 1t is fortunate that the secret
is out and that we know what is
proposed. ''Liquify the constitution!
make that fluid and tickle which in its
very nature ought to be fixed and
stable! "Liquify the constitution,
or make a flood by cutting the dykes
which protect good government
against perilous waves. and then let
us go to sea! And that is called
progress! 1t is revolution.
While publicists debate matters OF
mere policy the rest of US may sit
quietly down to hear. without serious
alarm the discussion: but when it is
openly proposed to revolutionize our
system of government patriotic men
who fear God and love men can not
view the proposal with indifference.