Worcester Democrat and the ledger-enterprise. (Pocomoke City, Md.) 1921-1953, 1925-04-11

Speech of Hon. William A. Oldfield
of Arkansas in the House of Repre-
seEtat;ves on Wednesday, March 4th,
Legislative Day of Tuesday March 81
1925.
t'Mr. Speaker, desire to discuss
briefly, and, if l may, point out some
fundamental differences between the
two great political parties; and, in or
der to do this, I must begin at the
foundation of our Government.
When it had been determined that
there should be union of the Colon
les for the common good, the serious
question of the hour became: What
sort of union shall it be? The line of
demarcation soon became distinct be-
tween two well-defined theories; and
the advocates of each soon formed
separate and distinct political parties.
Alexander Hamilton became the chief
exponent of the one; and Thomas JEFF
ferson, the chief exponent of the
other.
Hamilton and his followers were
insistent upon a strong central gov
eminent with order by virtue of
strength and force. The late Senator
Lodge, in writing of him says:
Hamilton's scheme went further,
seeking to create a strong and in so
far as was possible and judicious, a
permanent class all over the country,
without regard to existing political
affiliations, but bound to the Govern
ment as Government by the strong
est of all ties, immediate and person
al pecuniary interests.
And, further, Mr.. Lodge observed:
That the full intent of the policy
was to array property on the side of
the Government.
Again, it seemed to be part Of his
plan to impose a property qualifica-
ton upon the right of suffrage, at
least for President and Vice-Presi-
dent; but this seems to have been de-
feated by Washington, Jefferson,
Madison, and others; but substantial
ly the same idea with respect to State
matters was made to obtain in the
State of New York, the home State
of Hamilton, for period Of years,
but it was eliminated long ago.
Mr.. Hamilton had come to the col
onies shortly before the Revolution.
With respect to his mental makeup,
his idea of wealth, his idea of class,
his idea of government of, by, and
for class and wealth, his idea of a
strong central government with auto
cratic power, he never lost the early
impressions made upon him by the
power and grandeur of the then Euro
pean governments. A bographer of
one of his contemporaries records of
him:
In American politics it was impos-
sible that he ever should have been at
home, because he never could believe
the truths nor share the hopes upon
which the American system is based.
Thomas Jefferson's theory was in
direct contrast with that of Hamilton.
1t primarily opposed a strong central
government, but advocated a general
government of delegated power only,
and only for the common good; and,
IN form, a representative democracy.
The advocates and chief opponents of
this theory were of American birth;
their lives in the colonies, their ex-
periences, and their observations had
revealed to them the necessity, the
humanitarian right, if you please, of
a government so aptly described many
years later as government of the
people, by the people, and for the
people," A general government of
delegated power for the common
good; State governments strong and
supreme in their own right in all
things consistent with the authority
delegated to the General Government.
1t would seem that the greatest
practical difference between the two
theories was with respect to the great
body Of the citizenship and it's rights
and privileges; and have no doubt
that the Hamilton theory served a
very useful purpose in operating as a
powerful influence upon Jefferson and
his associates, not only to bring about
the establishment of representative
democracy, but to define and preserve
personal rights and personal liberties;
and it must have produced profound
thought and consideration on the
part of Jefferson. and Madison, be-
cause we observe them, not only de-
fining inalien able rights and so forth,
but, weaving them into the fundamen-
tai law of the land and to the end of
| foravar nreServinU them tn American