Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/262

 234

The Green Bag

citizens of the state, who choose their Senators. But as to one main purpose,

men seem to think that in discussing political questions property and the

the House of Lords and the Senate of the United States are substantially identical. They both represent the maturity, the wisdom, and as has been well said, the second thought of the

minority interests must be considered secondarily. Indeed they are often not

referred to at all. The class of which I speak regard it as a quick road to public

property and substantial rights and

favor to frame an issue of the people against wealth. But personal rights and private property are so entwined that in

interests of the people; they are a break water against the seas of passion and

fundamental legislation it is impossible to separate them. Indeed, nothing is

prejudice of the excited masses which sometimes roll in against the vested interests and rights of the people. At

more superﬁcial and evanescent than legislation,

times the people must be protected

issues reach the ﬁnal stage of adjustment

against themselves. Willoughby ("The Nature of the State") well expresses the thought:—

-— when the chaﬁ is separated from the wheat, when a true analysis is made

nation.

They protect the wealth, the

The people even when acting in their most direct manner cannot always be trusted to act wisely and according to their own best interests; that passion and prejudices of the moment will urge

an

electorate

Ol'

to

(P. 399.)

On such occasions, happily rare in

our history, the Senate checks attempted encroachments upon the rights of persons

or things urged by the other house, it balances

the

scales—and

for,

when

such

political

it is found, especially in this country, that all classes of the people are property owners— they have their farms; their small houses in the city; their deposits in the savings banks; their various

measures

destructive as well to the welfare of the state as to its stability, and that at times the despo tism of the multitude can far exceed in severity that possible of exercise by the most autocratic

of monarchs.

to ignore these interests, in any class of

maintains

the equilibrium of the Constitution. A select council or an upper House of Legislation exists for the twofold pro tection of minority interests and of property. A nation with one house chosen by popular vote cannot live long, and it would not alter the result that there were two parliamentary

bodies chosen by popular vote instead of one; or that the term of one was two

and the other six years. The same breath would blow them into a two fold rage-and the eventual conse

quences would be the destruction of the form of government. Some public

businesses, and interests in industries; and in many different ways the working classes (in which I include all men

who employ or are employed)

the

merchant, farmers, professional men, clerks and laborers, are the substantial owners of the property of the country. These interests — of incalculable value— the result of years of toil and suﬂ’ering, are entitled to the some protection as the purely personal rights of the proletariat ——

a word again coming into use but which in this country is yet happily limited to the individual who can pack his belongings in a satchel and segregate himself from society. Let us not be chary or timid in asserting and upholding the rights of property, not only to a full protection of the law, but to a distinctive

participation in legislation. The true and ultimate interests of all of the people require it. This phrase "the people" is a very popular one—but it is frequently misunderstood or mis applied. In all discussion respecting