The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-01-04
THE BAILEY SPEECH,

Ii is difficult 10 understand from Il
reasonable standpoint why Senator Bat
ley of Texas should have desired TO
make snch a speech as he did in tho
Senate on Thursday. it was fare.
well speech that might well have been
omitted He made il partly personal
and extremely bitter aud invcctivc,
partly reminiscent. and partly despond
ent. He sees ruin TO the country in
the attempt TO carry out the initiative
not republican forms Of government,
bat democratic, and so opposed 10 the
republican form of government cstab-
lished IN the Federal Constitution ard
adopted in the several States. And
yet he must be aware Of the fact that
the Supreme Court of the United States
has expressly upheld the initiative and
referendum in the Oregon cases, where
precisely the criticism was made upon
them which Senator Bailey urges is
contrary TO the Constitution and de
structive Of republican form of govern.
ment. But the Supreme Court held that
they are not destructive. and that the
provision OF the Constitution which
requires Congress to guarantee to every
state republican form Of government
is not violated by the application Of
the initiative and referendum. And
since the Supreme Court of the United
States, the most conservative body we
have, finds that no such change OF
government is carried in the initiative
and referendum as Mr Bailey insists
is carried, the people at large can well
content themselves with the Court s
decision and disregard all such pleas
az those made by Senator Bailey.
It is not at all uncommon for a
statesman of positive views and ag-
gressive character TO think that every.
thing is going to the dogs when things
are not going his way. But Senator
Bailey will have occasion TO cheer up
later on, and TO reflect in a philosophi-
cal way that such changes as the peo-
pie themselves introduce into their
Government are not likely to be de.
structive Of that government; aud that
such changes, if found to be changes
for the worse, will be changed back
again at the popular will. We do not
see such dangers in the initiative and
referendum as Senator Bailey pro-
claims, but we consider them entirely
unnecessary in the United States,
where we have a regular legislative
body entirely within the control Of the
people, and sufficient for the purpose,
We find the referendum to be unsat-
isfactory in that the people do not
take an interest in referendum ques-
tions and vote upon them with the
same interest or even approximately
the same number Of votes that they
cast for candidates for office. The
referendum to be of sufficient impor.
tance to submit to the people ought
10 receive from the people a vote even
higher than that cast for any candi-
date for office. The very reverse
is the case universally, and there
fore we see in the referendum 4
failure that must necessarily discredit
it and lead TO its discontipuauce. As
to the initiative, we see in that mere.
w plan Of discontented or scheming
persons to force their nostrums upon
the public in the hope Of getting per
sonal or special advantage out oil
them. We do not believe that either
the initiative or the referendum are
lasting principles. but we sec no rca-
son TO be alarmed about them, as SEN
ator Bailey evidently is.
The Senator evidently was full Of
auimosity and rage; nc was like the
man in the South who. if he hadD I
cusscd his mother-in.law, 'would We
bust and so Bailey had to cuss some
body and he took il out in a four
hours word-flow IL the Senate OF the
United States, which was by that much
imposed upon and ought TO have re
scnted the imposition, but was unable
to do so under its rules Of courtesy
and consideration. The speech, how
ever, amounted to but little. and viii
have no lasting effect upon American
public life,