Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 10.pdf/516

 The Constitution or a Theory — Which?

479

THE CONSTITUTION OR A THEORY — WHICH? By Ben. S. Dean.

ARE the people of the United States of the Continental congress pledged their prepared to give up the experiment lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor of constitutional self-government? Upon the to the Declaration of Independence, and answer to this question must depend the asserted the doctrine that " all men are fate of the initiative and referendum, just created equal, that they are endowed by now emerging from the academic into the their Creator with certain unalienable rights, realm of practical politics. The two systems that among these are life, liberty and the are diametrically opposed, and both cannot pursuit of happiness," they did not con exist in the same territory. Either we template that transitory joy which we feel must give up our present constitutional in following off the band on a holiday ex system, or we must relegate the initiative cursion, but the happiness which comes and referendum to the domain of speculative from the peaceable possession of the fruits thought, along with other impracticable of industry and skill, enabling us to minister theories, for it is as impossible to harmonize to the wants of those who are dependent them as it is for oil and water to mingle. upon us for their sustenance. Life and The idea that legislation ought to originate liberty belong to the animal man; the pur with the people, in their individual capac suit of happiness to the rational, provident ities, and that it should be finally submitted being. Realizing these facts the declara to the people, for their approval or disap tion continues : " That to secure these rights, proval, is very attractive; it flatters our governments are instituted among men, personal vanity, adds to our self-esteem, and deriving their just powers," not from the increases our individual importance, but it will of the majority, but " from the consent has one great and overwhelming objection, of the governed." That is the keystone in and that is that it makes no provision for the arch of our constitutional system, and the rights of minorities. The very hypothesis we are asked, after an experience of more on which the initiative and referendum is than a century, to discard it; to surrender based is that the majority shall rule, and this great principle, and to accept in its any restriction upon this power is an admis place the cruel and arbitrary will of an irre sion of the false premise on which the the sponsible majority, moved by what preju ory is predicated, and a confession of its dices and what passions we know not. inherent weakness. To assert the doctrine "Toward the preservation of your govern that the will of the majority is law, and then ment, and the permanency of your present to undertake to limit that will by constitu happy state," wrote Washington in his fare tional boundaries, is as absurd as it is illogi well address, " it is requisite, not only that cal, and we must abandon all thought of you steadily discountenance irregular op conservatism, and surrender the rights of positions to its acknowledged authority, but individuals, communities and states to the also that you resist with care the spirit of unbridled will of the majority, whenever we innovation upon its principles, however consent to accept the initiative and referen specious its pretexts. One method of as dum as a cure-all for the evils which society sault may be to effect, in the forms of the unquestionably suffers at the hands of selfish constitution, alterations which will impair abuses of power. When the hero-patriots the energy of the system, and thus to under