The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1913-08-20
MIST SHOULDER THE BURDEN.

xfrrGT SHOULDER THE
whom there are three four and FIVE canol-
49, ,or certain office it Is inevitable that
there should be more disappointed than sa''S-
fed neople and It is natural that the eiectof d
hoar, should come IN for more criticisms imam
praise It Is natural too. that with each. re-
curing election should come Suggestions io' ca
change In the method Of elections.
For this reason. II for no other, we have
every four years a rccrudeseence OF the ae''a-
ton will strip this argument OF Its super
.endents of schools. We have 1t with ns no"
and the agitation Is dangerous because OF the
n,ausih;llty of the arguments in Its favor ana
the too widespread feeling that elections are
dictated more by a sense OF political expeaieho5
than by the purpose of selecting the best men
for the various places to be filled. That TINS
feeling is mistaken one makes little amer
ence and 10 point out that even II so the same
evil would exist under system OF popular
elections Is no balm to the defeated Candidates
and their friends.
Moreover. In a democracy, under a govern
ment which derives its just powers from the
consent OF the governed, plea for popular
elections OF officials carries with 1t superficial
strength which appeals, To many minds the
burden Of proof is not here, as usual when
change Is suggested, upon the advocates OF the
change. but upon those who oppose 1t. 1t ap'
pears as II popular elections Of certain officials
is but an extension of our present form OF gov
eminent and not change in fundamentals.
Nevertheless. little thought and investiga-
ton will strip this argument of its super
fciality and expose the fallacy that lies within
The fact is that the popular election proposal
is a suggestion for fundamental change It's
adoption would be away from rather than to-
ward our form of government Our govern
ment provides for representative and not a
direct democracy and every move In the direc-
ton of the latter must be justified by condi-
tions and circumstances. There must be shown
that there is some pressing need for and that
the experimentation 1t will be an experiment.
gives almost certain promise Of success Rep
resentatve democracy is the rule; direct par
tcipation by the people IN the government is
the exception. made for reasons amply demon
strated TO be sound.
So it IL that the advocates OF election of school
superintenderts by the people must shoulder
the burden OF proof. They must show that the
present system Is bad and they must then show
that the suggested system Is better AT least
they must show the latter conclusively as a
theory can be demonstrated and must show
with absolute conclusiveness that the former
is true.
Concentrations will not do. Talk of the rights
OF the people win not serve. The rights of tht
people are not In question. They are con
eeded on all hands. The question is whether
the people are to decide TO exercise the right
TO direct elections or whether they are to de
eide TO exercise the right OF indirect elections
The question is one of expediency and not OF
right. Is ii best that the people should select
their superintendents through others Is Il
best that they should select them directly
Those who believe In popular elections have
right to point ont why they so believe and
why they oppose II and without being subjected
TO the charge Of opposing the VIII of the people
The people constitute the jury and to that tur,
both sides to the controversy must submit their
cases II is not question of opposing any
uhe's Fights. but or deciding which Of tive
rights should be exercised and the decision on
that point is with the people