The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1913-12-01

group, arbitrarily appointed or of hereditary sue
cession do all the choosing. If the question up
is whether the people of community should or
should not own their own electric light plant,
the oligarchs do the deciding But in democ-
racy the same question is supposed to be settled
by the free choice of the people as expressed
through some form of voting. If the people do
not decide that question itself they engage rep
resentatves, and thus settle it indirectly.
But when city government is changed, as
Dayton's was recently, from the federal plan
which is defended as being more representative
than any other-to the commission form with
its centralized authority, cry goes up 'This is
destroying the democracy of our city,
1t was this which the opponents of the Day
ton charter urged against its adoption. you are
taking our councimen, representatives away
from us and turning their duties over to five
men selected at large. We, the people, can no
longer have a voice in own government"
But, as matter of fact, the system is
far more truly representative and democratic
than the old, because it more easily makes it
possible for the people to express their choice on
the things about which there be a choice
When any matter of public policy comes up the
machinery is at hand by which it is referred
back to the people themselves, and not to sup
posed representatives. In that way the char
ter is democratic than the old and makes
possible more completely than the federal plan
real popular rule.
Yes, some say, but what will you do with
the manager and the service directors, who are
not chosen at all, but who are appointed? Is not
their being appontees itself the destruction of
popular rule? We people don't hire these
men and we have no power to discharge them.
Is not that destruction of democracy?
It is not, and for a very simple reason: In
a commission government the men who ap-
pointed by the commission are chosen to do that
about which there can not possibly be any choice.
1t is their duty to administer the business of
the city in thoroughly efficient and economic
manner. And as to the methods of business eff
fciency, there is room for difference of opin-
ion. All agree that city treasurer must keep
track of every dollar coming in or going out.
There can be no choice about his balance, because
the public not decide whether not two
and two make four. The public has no jurisdic-
ton over the multiplication table. And the same
thing is true of every other administrative de-
partment. If asphalt is found by scientific test
to be the best fitted for certain street. the pub
lie can not more change the decision of the tests
than it can the operation of natural law. Every
department which does the actual work of car
rying on the community's business affairs must
be under the jurisdiction of expert knowledge
and not of popular will.
Under the limited absolutism of Germany,
under the parliamentary democracy of England
and in the democratic United States these things
must all be done alike. There is no room for
difference. About these things there can be no
choice. Therefore, they can neither be democratic
or undemocratic; they only be efficient or in
efficient.