« PreviousContinue »
of these great aggregations of wealth to stifle competition, bankrupt rivals and then prey upon society. Corporations are the creatures of law, and they must not be permitted to pass from under the control of the power which created them; they are permitted to exist upon the theory that they advance the public weal, and they must not be allowed to use their powers for the public injury.
The right of the United States Government to regulate interstate commerce cannot be questioned, and the necessity for the vigorous exercise of that right is becoming more and more imperative. The interests of the whole people require such an enlargement of the powers of the Interstate Commerce Commission as will enable it to prevent discrimination between persons and places, and protect patrons from unreasonable charges.
The Government cannot afford to discriminate between its debtors and must, therefore, prosecute its legal claims against the Pacific railroads. Such a policy is necessary for the protection of the rights of the patrons as well as for the interests of the Government.'
The people of the United States, happy in the enjoyment of the blessings of free government, feel a generous sympathy toward all who are endeavoring to secure like blessings for themselves. This sympathy, while respecting all treaty obligations, is especially active and earnest when excited by the struggles of neighboring peoples, who, like the Cubans, are near enough to observe the workings of a government which derives all its authority from the consent of the governed.
That the American people are not in favor of life tenure in the civil service is evident from the fact that they, as a rule, make frequent changes in their official representatives when those representatives are chosen by ballot. A permanent office-holding class is not in harmony with our institutions. A fixed term in appointive offices, except where the Federal Constitution now provides otherwise, would open the public service to a larger number of citizens without impairing its efficiency.
The territorial form of government is temporary in its nature and should give way as soon as the territory is sufficiently advanced to take its place among the States. New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Arizona are entitled to Statehood, and their early admission is demanded by their material and political interests. The demand of the platform that officials appointed to administer the government of the Territories, the District of Columbia, and Alaska, should be bona fide residents of the Territories or District is entirely in keeping with the Democratic theory of home rule. I am also heartily in symapthy with the declaration that all public lands should be reserved for the establishment of free homes for American citizens.
The policy of improving the great waterways of the country is justified by the national character of those waterways and the enormous tonnage borne upon them. Experience has demonstrated that continuing appropriations are, in the end, more economical than single apropriations separated by long intervals.
It is not necessary to discuss the tariff question at this time. Whatever may be the individual views of citizens as to the relative merits of protection and tariff reform, all must recognize that, until the money question is fully and finally settled, the American people will not consent to the consideration of any
other important question. Taxation presents a problem which in some form is continually present, and a postponement of definite action upon it involves no sacrifice of personal opinion or political principles; but the crisis presented by financial conditions cannot be postponed. Tremendous results will follow the action taken by the United States on the money question, and delay is im possible. The people of this nation, sitting as a high court, must render judgment in the cause which greed is prosecuting against humanity. The decision will either give hope and inspiration to those who toil or "shut the doors of mercy on mankind." In the presence of this overshadowing issue, differences of opinion upon minor questions must be laid aside in order that there may be united action among those who are determined that progress toward an universal gold standard shall be stayed, and the gold and silver coinage of the Constitution restored.
The determination to hold the office for but one term, in case of election, was not hastily formed. For several years past I have believed that the Federal Constitution should be so amended as to make the President ineligible for re-election.
During the Fifty-third Congress I introduced a resolution providing for the submission of such an amendment. A favorable report was made, but I was unable to secure its consideration. The reasons for this amendment have been so forcibly presented by others that I am unable to add anything new.
In his first inaugural message, President Jackson, after recommending the election of the President by a direct vote of the people, added:
In connection with such an amendment it would seem advisable to limit the service of the chief magistrate to a single term of either four or six years.
Mr. Hayes, in 1876, in his letter accepting the Republican nomination, said:
The declaration of principles by the Cincinnati convention makes no announcement in favor of a single presidential term. I do not assume to add to that declaration, but believing that the restoration of the civil service to the system established by Washington and followed by the early presidents can be best accomplished by an executive officer who is under no temptation to use the patronage of his office to promote his own re-election, I desire to perform what I regard as a duty in stating now my inflexible purpose, if elected, not to be a candidate for election to a second term.
Mr. Cleveland in his letter of August 18, 1884, accepting the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, said:
When an election to office shall be the selection by the voters of one of their number to assume for a time a public trust instead of his dedication to the profession of politics; when the holders of the ballot, quickened by a sense of duty, shall avenge truth betrayed and pledges broken, and when the suffrage shall be altogether free and uncorrupted, the full realization of a
government by the people will be at hand. And of the means to this end, not one would, in my judgment, be more effective than an amendment to the Constitution disqualifying the President from re-election.
When we consider the patronage of this great office, the allurements of power, the temptation to retain public place once gained, and, more than all, the availability a party finds in an encumbent whom a horde of office holders, with zeal born of benefits received and fostered by the hope of favors yet to come, stand ready to aid with money and trained political service, we recognize in the eligibility of the President for re-election a most serious danger to that calm, deliberate and intelligent political action which must characterize a government by the people.
I do not think that any one will attempt to answer the argument made by Mr. Cleveland; certainly no one will who has seen a political convention dominated by "a horde of office holders," and has realized how correctly Mr. Cleveland's description fits those who exhibit “a zeal born of benefits received and fostered by a hope of favors yet to come." If it is said that crises may arise in which a second term would be of benefit to the country, I reply, first, that as an offset to this possible danger we must consider the danger, equally possible, that the President may be led to make a crisis for his own benefit; and, second, that whenever this nation can find within its borders but one man qualified for the Presidency, it will have reached a condition when its preservation will be a matter of little concern. In all matters of government we must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the policies proposed, and I am convinced that the dangers which arise from the possibility of a second term are greater than the dangers which would follow the adoption of the constitutional amendment proposed by Mr. Cleveland.
In expressing my opinion upon this subject as emphatically as possible, both upon receiving the bulletin announcing my nomination and, later, in my letter of acceptance, I desired to protect myself from myself and, by removing the hope of a re-election, leave nothing to interfere with the proper discharge of the duties of the office, in case election should follow.
Our opponents endeavored to make it appear that the income tax plank of our platform assailed the Supreme Court. This criticism was entirely without foundation. The platform commended the income tax, and suggested the possibility that the court might hereafter reverse its decision and return to the earlier precedents. It is easier to believe that the court will some day return to the construction placed upon the Constitution for a hundred years than it would have been, three years ago, to suppose that the court would render the decision
which it did. A future court has a right to declare a similar income tax law constitutional. Even the present members of the court have a right to change their opinions on this subject as judges have in the past changed their opinions. Therefore, it is neither treason nor sacrilege to express the hope that an income tax law may some day be enforced, even without a change in the Constitution. If I may be pardoned for expressing my own opinion, I will add that I have in the past advocated, and do now advocate, an amendment to the Constitution which will specifically authorize the collection of an income tax, to the end that the burdens of the Federal Government may be equitably distributed among those who enjoy the protection of the Government.
I have found considerable misunderstanding among the people as to the reason for bond issues during the present administration. All the bonds issued were issued for the purpose of buying gold, but the proceeds of the sale of the bonds were used to make good the deficit in the nation's revenues. The Republicans have generally insisted that bonds would not have been necessary if the revenues had equaled the expenditures; but this argument, it seems to me, is without foundation. While bonds would have been necessary to make good the deficit, they may, under the gold standard, be issued when the revenue is sufficient. The revenues are not necessarily paid in gold, and so long as gold can be drawn out at will by the holders of coin obligations, the gold reserve can be drained regardless of the condition of the revenues. To be sure, if the surplus should increase until it was equal to the total amount of greenbacks and Treasury notes, these obligations might be held in the Treasury so that those desiring gold could not find any paper upon which to demand it from the Government. But the letter written by Secretary Carlisle during the campaign sustains the position taken by silver advocates and shows that even in case all paper obligations are withdrawn, gold can be drained from the Treasury by the presentation of silver dollars and silver certificates. We must either have one standard money or two. If we have two, the government cannot undertake to redeem one with the other.
The Democratic platform took, in my judgment, the only defensible position when it declared that the Government should have the right to redeem coin obligations in either gold or silver. In this way, and in this way only, can the Government protect itself. As early as March 2, 1894, I introduced a bill relating to this subject. It was entitled: "A bill to construe the law which gives the Secretary of the