Evening star., 1925-06-30

To the Editor of The Star:
Within the last few years there
has begun to be established a new
principle. or at least a new custom,
entirely foreign to the fundamental
conception Of our form of elective
government, in choosing whom we
would have serve US in the National
Legislature. This new principle. or
recent custom. whichever we may call
it, has apparently escaped the atten-
ton Of the students of the science OF
political government.
l refer to the several instances
where a member of Congress having
died, the wife of the deceased member
has been elected or appointed to fill
out the unexpired term. And one might
in this connection call attention to
two instances of somewhat similar
nature-one where the wife was elect
ed to serve as governor on the death
of her husband. and the other where
the wife of a "discredited" governor
was elected governor in order to vim
dicate the husband.
Now it is proposed, or rather it has
been suggested. that the late Senator
the right to serve out La Follette's
term. Next we might hear that.
should President Coolidge die, his son
or wife should be elevated to the Office
as his next of kim" Ye shades of
Thomas Jefferson and democracy un-
defiled! Why has not William Jen-
nings Bryan looked into this and
given us his opinion on the matter!
Are our elective political OFFICES to
become hereditary family offices, the
same as under the government of
king, or emperor, or other absolute
potentate? The instances mentioned
have excited no political comment OF
more than passing sentimental inter
est. Which reminds one I'VE first
abbor. then tolerate, then embrace;
Walter Bagehot, in his admirable
work entitled "The English Constitu-
tion," says in substance the best rea-
son for the continuance of the Eng
lish hereditary family ruler is now
primarily based on Sentlment-ltS
strength and power for good is senti-
mental, rather than material. So, too,
l believe, the appointment or election
in the instances of succession above
mentioned are based on the same rea,
son, even though these sentimental
elevations to family Inheritance
serve no useful purpose, but, indeed,
do present menacing precedent.
X X
We are taught In all or our text
books on the science of political gov
ernment and in the history text
books, as we'll as the numerous works
Of our scheme of political. govern
ment. that the dividing line that
marked the difference in the political
philosophy of Alexander Hamilton
and Thomas Jefferson was almost
wholly based, not on who shall rule,
but on how long the ruler shall rule,
Hamilton was in favor of electing
the President for life, the Senators
for life, and the appointment of the
governors of States by the President
of the United States for life. Jeffer-
son believed in the election of men
for short terms and they not to be
elegible q second time to the same
ly centralized government; Jefferson
believed in a weak national govern
ment, but strong State government
but which in turn would be amenable
at all times to the subdivisions OF
the State government. Jefferson was
also against the law of entail and
the "law of primogeniture"-thu he
carried his theory of government
down to the family" government
And while it may be said with entire
justice to the record of history that
tant instances live up to his profess
ed democracy. he. in the main, did
where expediency allowed him to-
carry out his theory Of rotation In
Office"
y X
OF course it may be indelicate to
suggest that Mr.. Bryan study this
new principle or custom in ouI
| scheme of government and then
give us his mature opinion on the
| matter, since he was three times
candidate for President. and then
saw At to induct his brother into the
| candidacy for the vice presidential
nomination. sort OF hereditary
| family affair, as it were. Probably i,
Is from Bryan that McAdoo and
| In the romance and sentiment OF
| Ireland.
DfHerANt fron alI thA othAra NyNer