The Birmingham age-herald., 1924-10-19

by educated men, and must be done by somebody. But Jefferson and Lincoln and Lincoln, by the way, was tre- mendously influenced by Jefferson's philosophy-would not countenance any such theory. They did not be- lieve that education and labor are in compatible. They did not believe that a blind horse upon a treadmiil is a per- feet illustration of what a laborer should be--all the better for being blind, that he may mot kick under standingly.'
 up on the theory of population of blind horses upon treadmills, but no such theory iS possible in a democracy. We must have universal education, whatever may happen to the hot work, the heavy work, and the dirty work. We may rest assured that a properly educated people, people with all the resources of science and culture, will know how to get done, and well done, it's hot and heavy and dirty work and all the rest of its work. It will know how to manage It's problems, whatever their nature, with intelligence. and sue cess. Education-yes. But state monopoly of education-no."
 No State Monopoly Of Education l What Is the matter with that?" ''It strikes at the most precious thing known, to moral dynamics-individua l dardizes human beings. It irons out of the national life the value and love- i lfness of variety. Control of education belongs to the local aIitonomies of our commonwealth. Through these, and through these alone, can the genius full virtue into our educational theory and practice"
 What is your attitude to religion and the family principle?"
 Religion, in my estimation, is neces- lsary to all personal and national agree with Wellington that education without religion is a devil-factory. Religion should be universal and free. Bigotry is 8 deadly enemy of democ- racy and of the human soul. Take away the family as our social unit and you degrade us to the level of the brute. If atheistic communism, for ex- ample, had no other fault-and it has many-its renunciation of religion and of the sanctity of the family tie would debar it from the circle of western civilization"
 Ratification Of Treaties
 Are you satisfied with our constitu- tion as 1t is working?"
 Not absolutely hut fairly well sat isfied. It certainly IS working better than is the constitution Of any other country with which I am familiar. ]
 
 about the conduct of foreign affairs might be improved. I feel that a ma. jority of congress, instead of a two. thirds vote of the senate, should be sufficient to ratify a treaty.
 This problem annoyed John Hay who stated that a treaty entering the senate was like bull entering an arena-almost certain sooner or later to be slaughtered. As our worldwide interests expand, and with them our in. ternational contacts, our need fol treaty making machinery, not only efficient, but prompt, increases. Un- der the present arrangement, for what reason 1t is not easy to see, a senator voting no is esteemed twice a. weighty as a senator voting yes believe an important improvement could be made if we set cur minds tC the problem of working out, a moro flexible and, above all, a more rapid method in this matter.
 "Parliamentarism has it's merits only a very shallow or very insincert student of government could deny that Parliamentarism works well in Great Britain and in the British dominions It has been initiated more generally in the constitutional progress of Flu rope than has our constitution. I sometimes wonder why certain of Oul states close to Canada have not expert mented in parliamentary government
 
 these matters. However, If improve ment of our constitutional machinery Is conceivable, I stand firmly on the essentials 1t represents.
 Protecting Constitutional Rights
 "Your question, I presume, has es pecial reference to the proposal O. Senator La Toilette to limit the power of the supreme court. I have no sym pathy with that proposal, but even lesi with the hysterical outcry of the re publicans that it is a revolutionary proposal straight from Russia. Wha Senator La Toilette recommends fl that we should abandon our tried an( familiar American system for the sys tenn of England. The English plac, no limitation on the power of parlia ment. We do. We give no unlimited power to any man or set of men Neither do we leave them to be thu judges of their own limitations.
 Foolish notions are current concern ing the supreme court. SIt has beer represented as ruthlessly intent or thwarting the will of the people ana striking out laws passed by the Con gress. Nothing of the sort is true The supreme court by itself has n' power, to attack any law. It can ac only if and when it receives the petition of a citizen who deems himself wrongeC by some law. It then considers hi claim and decides whether the law fl question does or does not deprive hin of a right guaranteed by the constitu tion. If the American people want diff ferent rights, less rights, or nor rights they should amend the Consti tuition. But as long as we have defi nite bill of rights in our Constitution I do not believe we should benefit il any way by giving the Congress powe to infringe on these rights" Nationality And NatiOnRlism What should you say of nationalit, and of nationalism?"
 "I should say of nationality virtual. , what I have said of individuality-tha 1t is above price. Nationality after all