The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1914-09-18

which will be proposed by the league
at the coming session of the legisla-
ture.. 1t seems that the league has
mailed to the gentlemen copies of the
bill in question and asked that they
pledge themselves to vote for the bill
as submitted and without amendment
except such as might meet the ap-
proval of the league and stated quite
plainly that if it appeared that the
candidate in questions was "ferninst"
the bill the league would be "ferninst"
the candidate. There was nothing de-
batable in the attitude of the league.
1t hit straight from the shoulder and
asked the candidate to come across
with a definite statement of his posi-
ton And in this request some of the
would-be representatives of the dear
people profess to see deep, dark con-
spiracy of bribery and corruption. And
they won't stand for such rank intimi-
dation-not by a hulluva lot!
The attitude of the gentlemen is typ
ical. When a gentleman of that stripe
becomes a candidate for job as legls-
lator, he Immediately becomes a super
ior being No mere voter, nor yet any
organization of voters, should presume
to ask what a potential legislator will
do with regard to any measure in
Il. Oh hn
may be interested 1t is lese majestic.
The legislator must be free and un-
trammelled and at perfect liberty to
follow the dictates of his own sweet
will, regardless of the desires of a
mere voter, and the voter must submit
to the Judgment of the legislator and
accept him on trust, hoping that such
measures as he, the voter, may desire
will get as far as the committee of one
house before they, the measures, are
totally emasculated. But for the legis-
lator to pledge himself to support a
specific measure which may be submit
ted to him for his approval-perish the
thought! 1t is bribery! 1t is intimi-
dation! 1t is corruption of the vilest
sort! Wow!
But let's see. The voter, as before
intimated, is interested in a certain
definite bill. A copy of the bill is sub
mitted to the hopeful candidate with a
request that he state whether or not
he will endeavor to get the bill enact
ed into law in substantially its pres
ent form-in other words, that he will
not kill it with amendments. The
voter has perfect right to want the
legislation passed, and consequently
he has a perfect right to ask the legis-
lator whether the latter will support
the bill Logically as WELL he has a
perfect right to withhold his vote from
the legislator who refuses to support
the legislation desired, and to use all
his influence to secure the defeat of
the gentleman at the polls by the big
gest possible majority or plurality. 1t
is not morally incumbent upon the
voter to accept a "cat in bag" in
matters in which he is interested. Any
man with intelligence enough to rep
resent a legislative or senatorial dis
trict in the legislature should be able
to decide, after a few careful read
ings, whether he will or will not sup
port a measure And he should be
willing to state frankly whether or not
he will do so. The candidate has no
right to ask the voter to take him on
trust" for the voters is selecting men
to do his share of the public business
and has a right to know what sort of
men he is choosing and how they will
act in specific instances in which he
is vitality interested
From the time when the memory of
man runneth not to the contrary, the
effort of the mere voter to bring the
candidate up to the snubbing post and
make him face the issues squarely has
been met by this holier-and-wiser-than-
the-ordinary-mortal attitude, and the
specious plea for a free and untram-
melled legislator who would be at lib
erty to peddle his vote or swap it or
give it away as occasion might present
itself. The pledge works no injustice
upon the candidate. If he objects to
the bill he can refuse to support it and
take his chances. Ii majority of his
constituents want the bill made law he
will be elected to the home guard. If
the majority is against it he will be
elected to the legislature. But the
voter has a right to know which he
will do.