The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1919-01-24
Democratic Creeds.
Clinton, Ky.


on the discussion of government
ownership. Pity but every voter
would express himself in print or
| public questions. DR.. Singletary Is
opposing our points of view, but he
J is entitled to a place in the forum
Just now we will not undertake tC
answer in full the doctors contri-
button, but to call attention to one
or two things he may have errone-
ously stated. The first is that the
constitution of the United States
provides for the initiative, referen-
dunn and recall. That is misleading
AS far as the general franchise is
concerned, the people of the United
States have the referendum in voting
for party nominees and in recent
legislation the referendum as 1T con-
Germs party primaries; but the mi
tiative, referendum and recall, as
understood in the political deliv-
erances of Mr.. Bryan and of the law
as it stands in Oregon, is q diff
ferent matter entirely. The consti-
tuition does not provide for that kind
of referendum at all. On the other
hand, the author of the constitution,
Mr.. Hamilton, saw to it that no such
liberty of political action was en-
braced in the constitution. The con-
stitution is one thing and the Decla-
ration of Independence is another.
Mr.. Hamilton was a Federalist and
Mr.. Jefferson, author of the Decla-
ration, was a democrat. AS to the
initiative and recall, the Federal
statutes make no provision at all.
The State of Oregon has the initia-
tive, referendum and recall. The
principle of government was pattern
ed after the Swiss system and intro
duced in the State of Oregon by Mr..
Uren The voters of tho United States
Government in national politics
have no way of initiating legislation
nor of calling men from public office.
In a limited way Tennessee can
recall its public men with what is
known as the ''ouster," but this is
only resort to the courts. Other
States have legislated on these ques-
tions, but just now we cannot quote
them accurately.
Another point of DR.. Singletary's
discussion is that government owner
ship is pure democracy. Mr.. Jeffer-
son was probably the greatest ex-
ponent of democracy in America, and
while we will have to hurry over
without being able to quote history
on this point it is our opinion
that government ownership is not de-
fined by Mr.. Jefferson as a demo-
cratic principle. But it is the foun-
dation principle. of socialism, ac-
cording to the founders of that sys-
tenn, Mr.. Marx and others. Mr..
Bryan, before his nomination as a
Democratic candidate for President,
supported Mr.. Weaver, who was at
that time known as populist, an
other branch of the socialistic idea,
which provided for the subtreasury,
etc., taking charge of the agricul-
tural industry. After that Mr.. Bry-
an became the champion of free sill
yer, and some years after his defeat
for President, came back from a tour
of Europe advocating the govern
ment ownership Of railroads. Democ-
racy branded him then as socialist
and condemned his announcements.
There are two basic principles on
which socialism is founded. One is
government ownership and the other
the equal distribution of the profits
of industry under the plan of gov
eminent ownership. AS far as we
know, no democrat of any distinction
has included these principles in the
democratic creed, and no party claim
ing to profess the principles OF de-
mocracy has declared in favor of
either principle.
Then we do not think DR.. Single
tary is safe in saying that govern
ment ownership is pure democracy;
neither do we agree with him that
the initiative, referendum and recall
are incorporated in tho Constitution
of the United States and o rule of
practive in American politics.
Germany had party of social
democrats. in which the principles
of socialism and democracy wore
mixed, or perhaps blended, but all
these professions wore renowned to
support the Prussian aristocracy.
Dr. Singletary's grounds of reason
ing are that the people can be trust
cd, and that is just whore we agree.