The Constitution or a Theory — Which? we allow these changes, as proposed by the initiative and referendum, to go to the length of remodeling the constitution, by the simple process of forcing the legislature to act, and then going to the people upon the enactment. The third objection, in the absence of all others, is enough to condemn the system in the mind of every student of history. Ex perience has demonstrated that popular governments have ever failed where they have dealt with the individual over large expanses of territory, and any system which in the slightest degree encroaches upon the legitimate province of our state governments in their control over the individual, should be resisted as the entering wedge in the cause of monarchy. An unrestricted democracy, embracing an area, diversity of climate and condition, such as is found in the United States, is impossible; it cannot be sustained, and every step in that direction is a pro gressive movement toward an absolute, or at least a personal, form of government. Mr. Barker tells us that if we " give the people such an amendment (providing for the init iative and referendum) in national matters, they will at once petition, asking that an elec tion be called at which the voters shall answer the following questions : ' Shall the constitu tion be so amended as to provide for the election of president, vice-president and United States senators by a direct vote of the people?' 'Shall the government own and control the railroads and telegraphs of the nation? ' ' Shall the government remonetize silver in order that it may pay its bonded obligations? ' ' Shall the government control and issue its volume of money, or shall this power be delegated to the selfish cupidity of individual and corporate greed?' 'Shall the government prohibit the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes, or shall it continue to debauch the manhood of its citizens for so many dollars per year, cash in advance?'" We have a right to assume that Mr. Barker,
483
whose discussion in the November number of "The Arena " undertakes the task of proving the desirability of this system, has mastered all the considerations involved, and as he assures us that in the event of having the power, the people would submit certain spe cific questions which he formulates, it would be interesting to have him formulate the answers which the people would return to his two last questions. It will be observed that the gentleman, even in so trifling a matter as illustrating his position, has dis played his bias to such an extent that he has made it impossible for the people to answer two of his questions in a manner satisfactory to himself without negativing their own dec laration. For instance, how is any man go ing to answer this question by yes or no, as must, of necessity, be done under the plan which he proposes : " Shall the government control and issue its volume of money, or shall this power be delegated to the selfish cupidity of individual and corporate greed?" If you answer yes, then you stand in the position of declaring that this power shall be delegated "to the selfish cupidity of individ ual and corporate greed," at the same time that you are declaring in favor of the govern ment issuing and controlling the volume of money, and Mr. Barker is in the same dilemma in respect to his prohibition ques tion. Yet there is little doubt that Mr. Barker would indignantly resent the sugges tion that the people, of whom he is a highly developed specimen, are not competent to deal with all questions of legislation, with no more of preparation than might be involved in signing a petition circulated by some dreamer in the name of reform. But to return to the third objection. The proposition to elect the president, vice-president and senators in congress by a direct vote of the people, aims at the very foundation of a republican form of government. It en tirely ignores the states as a part of the com pact, and arrays the people in two great hostile camps at each presidential election,
