The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-01-16
WHY NOT A PLEBISCTTE?

IT ME Will to power Is inherent in human nature
and in government.
That fundamental fact was recognized when our
nation was created check-and- balance concept.
The tendency toward concentration of power was
thoroughly understood by the founding fathers.
Hence the principle of three branches executive leg
islative and judicial-co-o ordinate and co-equal.
AS our history was unfolded there have been
times when this, that, or the other branch has
pressed for power to the point of unbalance some
times executive, sometimes legislative sometimes
judicial In the emergency of 1888, the weight of
power listed sharply in the direction of the executive
AS the emergency became less acute charges of at
tempted dictatorship began to be heard Charges that
Congress had become rubber stamp, and so forth
Now the Supreme Court is having its inning and
complaints against that arse-talk of judicial autoc-
racy.
Later 1t may be against the legislative branch.
But always, when there is real or an apparent
lack of equilibrium, the American people become
alarmed, and with good reason. They are jealous of
the power that they have delegated. For the idea
of balance is essential to democracy's survival.
But in the basic conception of democracy there is
spot where concentration of power is not dan
gerous but the other hand is desirable; the orig
inal source of all power; not legislative judicial or
executive. That source is the people. From the peo-
pie democracy gets its life. To them, if the theory
of democracy is sound in the first place. it is safe
to transmit for final decision any question.
We believe that, with all the faults and fraities
that characterize human beings as individuals, the
people as whole acting in their composite capacity
will to arriving at absolute right than
other authority; than any Individual legislative
body court.
WE believe, therefore, that final power should be
W reposed in no other hands than those of the
people.
And we believe further that in our constitutional
democracy machinery could be devised for speedy
plebscite any great public issue that has reached
an impasse would solve the problem of undue
concentration of power.
We do not presume to suggest how that ma
chinery should be constructed That is a job for
constitution makers and for law makers.
We merely contend that if we are seeking per-
lection in democratic government the idea of the
people having the last say is sound.
Might it not be possible for any question of great
national Importance to be sent back to the people
as whole after it has arrived at staemate; such for
example as to AAA or the NRA. Suppose that each
of those could be voted as separate referendum
in the next general election What would be wrong
with that? Wouldn't that be simpler, more direct,
fairer, and more III keeping with the very funda-
mentals of the democratic dea than any other way?
We consider it evident that if you can't trust
the people you can't trust democracy; equally we
believe that if such issues those mentioned were
passed by the final power and the veto sustained
overruled there could be no complaint left, in
democracy.
We may in all this appear to be cropping. We are.
But sincerely believe that we dealing with an
idea that is basic and which, if it could be prac-
tically applied would solve governmental difficulty
which is becoming more and puzzling and
onerous and hazardous as our society becomes more
and more complex
We foresee that the first contention will be that
already have the plebscite in the constitutional
amendment method. Theoretically, yes. Practically,
no-in some Situations-becauSe of the time element
because the patient dies while you going for the
doctor.