The Mankato free press. [volume] (Mankato, Blue Earth County, Minn.) 1879-1924, 1913-01-10
level then we shall rejoice at their

level then we shall rejoice at theil
success.
Why Restraint Is Needed.
What is there in the present con
dition that the progressive party rep
resents which can lead us to sup
pose that human nature has sc
changed that no restraint is neces
sary in all society to prevent one
man from depressing another or tt
prevent majority of men from OPP
pressing an individual or a minority?
What is it that constitutional limita
tons are for in popular govern
ment? A popular government is a
government by the people-that
by a majority of the people, who
under the law are given the right
exercise the electoral franchise, and
constitutional limitations are i'm.
posed to prevent the misuse of the
power of the majority so that the
individual or the minority may not
suffer injustice through the action OF
the majority. Where is the security
in present society that the majority
may not from time to time do injus-
tice to the minority and to the in
dividual?
Says Majorities May Err.
1T is said that we distrust the
people if We assume that the ma
jority will ever do injustice. In
other words, the contention is that
the vote of the majority is always
right. Well, as the majority in pass
ing upon given question deter
mines sometimes one way and some
times another, in which case is it
right? If the wisdom of our fore
fathers and Of the long line of able
men who have fought for popular
government has led to the introduc.
ton into every scheme of govern
ment OF restraints to prevent in
justice by the majority to the
nority and the individual what is
there that has happened in recent
years to make us feel that a change
has come over the character of ma
jorities so that they may not exer-
else a tyranny that they have ex-
ercised in the past, and in respect
to which they have been restrained
by constitutional limitation? How are
the inequalities in society to be
wiped out? How is government to
assure happiness to the individual?
Is it by an equal distribution of
property? Is it by taking from one
man that which is his and giving it
to another who has not earned it?
Il submit that this is the ultimate
result of a thorough analysis of all
the theories advanced by the pro-
gressive party. 1t is easily seen that
under the progressive platform the
whole machinery that has been so
built up by the older states
men OF this country and of Eng
land to save to the individual and
the minority, freedom, equality be-
fore the law, the right of property
and the right to pursue happiness,
is to be taken apart and thrown in
to junk heap and the preservation
Of such rights or privileges, if yCr
choose to call them such, is to be
left to the charitable impulse of a
benevolent administration.
None at all familiar with the
principles of free government and
the tendency of erring and power
loving human nature would be con-
tent to have his liberty or his rief
of property or his right to pursue
happiness dependent upon the bene-
violence of any one.
Now it has been suggested tha'
the republican party can unite again
with many of the progressive party,
II only different rule can be put
into force through the convention of
the national committee by which the
reduction of southern representation
would be secured and fairer meth.
cd of selecting the candidates TO,
president by the republican party
could be devised.
Il haven't any objection to any
method which shall be fair. That
is not a reason for joining or giving
up the party. 1t is the principle
that the party advocates that should
control one in it's support.
not that the republican party is de.
sirous of holding office or power,
though neither is to be despised, bu
1t is that in this crisis we feel that
we nave the means of preventing the
country for taking step, which il
taken, will precipitate us into gov
ernmental chaos, will set the COM
on chimerical chase for an
ideal that is impossible to realize
and that in that chase the COM
munity will lose the inestimable bene-
fits OF a permanent popular govern
ment that We have developed after
1000 years of struggle and have
maintained and preserved
lnviolate for 125 years of national
liberty.
I'VE are not bitter; we are not
cast down; we are not vengeful. If
the people of the United States can
stand a democratic administration
Tor one or two or even more terms
we shall certainly not object to their
for endurance in this regard,
but what we wish to assure ourselves
of is that neither through democra-
lie radicalism nor through progress
'lve radicalism shall the pillars of our
noble state be pulled down and the
real cause of the people be sacri.
iced to dreams of demagogues and
theorists