Evening star., 1939-03-01


possessions are attacked. This
presumably will narrow the opera
ton of the referendum solely to
whether the United States shall de-
clare war against any foreign power
and send troops across the ocean
as happened in 1917.
Back of the referendum proposal
Is the assumption that series of
steps growing out of neutrality con-
troversies causes an American Pres
1dent against his will to involve the
Nation into situation from which
"rubber-stamp' Congress cannot
gracefully retreat. Instead of al
lowing Congress to decide such an
issue. the idea is to submit it to a
popular vote.
Impractical as War Preventive.
On its face, this seems like a
powerful way to prevent war-a sure
safeguard. But it really isn't in
practical operation. Had the refer
endum been submitted to the Amer
ican people the instant the Lusitania
was sunk, with 1000 innocent lives
lost without single moments
warning, it is conceivable that
America might have entered the
war sooner than 1917. 1t was the
restraining influence of a public
opinion which preferred to let such
delicate matters be decided at Wash
ington by patriotic Congress and
a patriotic President and which kept
the Nation from being inflamed.
Had the referendum for war been
possible. all the influences that
make for mass propaganda. includ-
ing public demonstrations in which
passions are readily aroused. would
have been in operation. Nor need
1t be supposed that a referendum
will take time, and hence can be
used as means of delay. Con-
gress would have the power by law
to fix the time and date and
machinery for registering public
expression, and the chances are
that referendum could, if desired,
be fulfilled within one week. If
public indignation were aroused, the
demand would be for instant action
and the use of all modern devices
of communication to collect the
popular votes.
The referendum is in theory
democratic principle, but if it is
the way to get popular expression,
then it can equally be applied to
other important steps in national
as well as foreign policy. Parlia-
mentafy systems of government
have, in effect, a referendum ma
chlnery, because at any time that
the majority party fails to conform
to public opinion, a national admin
tstration can be overthrown and the
issue carried to the people. Rather
than engage in a general election,
the party in power yields to what
seems to be public demand and the
opposition becomes the responsible
party.
Might Foster Constructive Action.
In the United States today there
is a majority in the House, and
perhaps even in the Senate, which
IS out Of sympathy with the policies
of the Roosevelt administration.
Opposition elements are impatient
to acquire power and authority. but
not Immediately. Perhaps they
would be more constructive if they
realized that at any moment they
were to be precipitated into positions
OF complete responsibility for Gov
ernment policy as is the case abroad.
If the sales of airplanes to France
were wrong or if the President
misconstrued the wishes of the peo-
pie in foreign policy, a parliament
tary system which permitted the
recall of the President, as is the
case with Governors and Mayors
under various local forms of gov
ernment, would quickly afford an
opportunity for the expression of
public opinion.
Would the coalition of independ-
ent Democrats and Republicans be
ready to take over complete respon-
sibility for national policy if we had
parliamentary system today?
Hardly. And instead, the opposition
Is free to criticise, to block legisla-
ton, to impair the vitality of
administration proposals without
having any duty to offer workable
substitutes. Thus today the oppo-
sition to the administration is vehe-
mently opposing the spending"
policies of the administration, but
not single proposal for national
recovery by any other organized
means has been offered except the
general statement that recovery will
come if most of the New Deal laws