his becoming a candidate for renomination in 1912 after it was apparent that Mr. Taft's sympathies were with the conservative elements. Failing to secure his nomination at the Republican convention in Chicago, Mr. Roosevelt's supporters "bolted," and formed a new party which took the name of Progressive. In the campaign of 1912 the new social and economic questions growing out of the industrial revolution received a more extended consideration than ever before in the history of our parties. The tariff, it is true, was an old issue, but the Democrats attacked it specifically as a "special privilege" enjoyed by the corporations and trusts at the expense of the public. In their platform they declared in favor of tariff for revenue, although they promised not to injure "legitimate industry" by a too radical reduction in duties. The Republicans adhered to the policy of protection, but conceded the desirability of making the duties as low as possible, just enabling our manufacturers to overcome the handicap imposed by the higher cost of labor and production in the United States. The Progressives favored a downward revision of unjust and excessive schedules, but the retention of the principle of protection to be worked out on a basis of exact information as to the relative cost of production at home and abroad. The Socialists took very little interest in the tariff discussion, because they held in general that protection was designed primarily for the capitalists, and afforded little or no relief to the working class against excessive competition in the labor market. The important question of the trusts and monopolies received careful attention. The Republicans advocated a clearer definition of those acts of corporations which unduly restrained trade, opposed the restriction of business opportunities by combinations and monopolies, and favored a more definite statement of the rights of larger business undertakings so that "business success honorably achieved may not be converted into a crime." The Democrats demanded a more vigorous prosecution of the trusts with a view to breaking them up into smaller units in order to make competition easier for business men of a minor order. The Progressive party took the position that the great corporation was "an essential part of modern business," and to some extent both "inevitable and necessary"; and advocated the regulation of such great concerns by a national industrial com mission. The Socialist party agreed with the Progressives in the belief that trusts were the inevitable outcome of industrial evolution, but they contended that regulation was futile and that public ownership could alone relieve the country from the domi-. nation of these gigantic accumulations of capital. In the matter of political reforms, the Republican party made no concessions to the radical sections of the country; it came to the defence of the judiciary as the upholder of individual rights and denounced the recall of judges. The Democrats favored the extension of the direct primary to presidential nominations, and their candidate, Mr. Wilson, during the campaign announced his belief in the initiative, referendum, and recall, although he opposed the extension of the last device to judicial officers. The Progressive party urged upon the states the policy of the short ballot, with responsibility secured to the people by the initiative, referendum, and recall; and pledged itself "to the task of securing equal suffrage to men and women alike." The most extensive programmes of labor reforms were, of course, put forward by the Progressive and Socialist parties, which favored such schemes as minimum or living wages, prohibition of child labor, special laws safeguarding the health and safety of laborers, and workmen's compensation. The former party looked upon these as reforms designed to save the present system, and the latter as mere concessions to be secured as preliminaries to the conquest of the government by the working class. The Republicans promised "in all possible ways to satisfy the just demand of the people for the study and solution of the complex and constantly changing problems of social welfare." The Democrats promised to exempt trade-unions from the provisions of the law which made them liable to penalities as combinations in restraint of trade, agreed to afford jury trial in injunction cases, and pledged the party to the establishment of a Department of Labor. Among the other issues of 1912 were the currency question, in which the old contest between the eastern financiers and western debtors appeared in a new form, conservation of natural resources, legislation making it easier for the farmers to borrow money on more favorable terms, the further regulation of railways, and the position to be conceded to the Philippine Islands.1 1 Stanwood, History of the Presidency, 1897-1909. See Readings, p. 107. CHAPTER VII THE DEVELOPMENT OF PARTY MACHINERY THE process by which political parties have built up their organizations from the primary to the national committee and extended their sway throughout the United States and its dependencies forms one of the most interesting studies in all the history of political institutions. Originating in a variety of voluntary practices, party machinery became more definite and more complete from generation to generation, until at length it became a veritable government without and within the legal government with its own army of officials, its congresses or conventions, its rules and customs, and its methods for maintaining discipline in the ranks. Its enormous power was early recognized; but for a long time it was regarded as a purely private association in spite of its eminently public character; and accordingly it escaped all governmental control. It was not until the abuses of the parties became so notorious as to threaten the integrity of the commonwealth, that the policy of regulating them by statute was adopted. This policy, once accepted, has been steadily advanced, however, until in many states the political party has been frankly recognized by law and openly made a piece of the regular mechanism of government.' Party machinery is not a fortuitous development, but is the direct result of the requirements of practical politics. The necessity of nominating candidates for offices leads inevitably to the development of caucuses and conventions. In the conduct of campaigns, leadership and discipline are indispensable, and hence we have concentration of power in the hands of party directors, and the organization of an army of party workers. When a party is in power, it fills offices, makes and enforces laws, grants franchises, and in a multitude of ways regulates private interests; and out of these functions come emoluments, cam1 See Readings, p. 131. paign funds, and enormous power over the lives of men. It is small wonder, therefore, where there are so many offices to be filled and so many advantages to be derived that our political parties have reached a high degree of organization and control. Early Nominating Methods The beginnings of this great system may be traced back into the colonial period, for it appears that even the Boston town meeting, so celebrated for its democratic character, had fallen into the hands of the caucus long before the Declaration of Independence. After the organization of the independent governments, there was naturally an increase in the number of elective offices," and, while in many instances candidates were brought before the public through personal negotiations or by the advocacy of a few friends, it was not long before more or less regular assemblies for the purpose of making nominations appeared everywhere throughout the states. For local and county nominations a general mass meeting composed of interested parties seems to have been the early method employed, but the controversies which arose in these assemblies led to a demand for regularity in composition, so that nominating conventions of official delegates soon began to appear alongside the mass meetings. For example, candidates for Congress and the state legislature in the county of Philadelphia were nominated in 1794 "at a large and respectable meeting of the freemen," but five years later, in 1799, we hear of a county convention in that city made up of three delegates from each ward. By the close of the eighteenth century, county conventions, composed of delegates representing lower units of government, seem to have been fairly well developed in Pennsylvania.3 About the same time congressional and county conventions seem to have been regularly established in Massachusetts and in all other states where party contests had reached any degree of sharpness. The state convention as a regular institution was a development of a later period. It is true that we hear of a state con 1 For John Adams' interesting account of the Boston caucus, see Readings, P. 12, note 1. 2 See above, p. 89. 'Dallinger, Nominations for Elective Offices in the United States, pp. 21-23. vention in Pennsylvania as early as 1788, but it seems to have disappeared before a device known as the legislative caucus. Owing to the difficulties of communication and the small number of elective state offices, the expedient of nominating state tickets by the convention method did not appear attractive to the politicians. For a time, therefore, nominations were made in a variety of fashions. For example, Judge Yates was nominated by the Federalists as a candidate for governor of New York, in 1789, by "a party meeting" held in New York City, at which Alexander Hamilton and several other persons were appointed a committee of correspondence to promote the election of their nominee. In 1792, George Clinton was nominated governor of that state at a Republican meeting held in New York City, said to have been composed of "gentlemen from various parts of the state." The Legislative Caucus It was not long, however, before the power of making state nominations was assumed by the members of each party in the state legislature, who organized themselves into an assembly known as the legislative caucus.1 It was the practice for this caucus to meet officially, usually in the capitol building, select the candidates, and issue a signed proclamation or appeal for support. In conducting the campaign, the legislative caucus organized correspondence committees throughout the state. Although this newer device was more representative than the older irregular mass meetings which it supplanted, it was, of course, not so completely representative as the later state convention. For instance, if a county had no Federalist member in the state legislature, it would have no weight in the selection of the state candidates, although it might contain a number of Federalist voters. The injustice of this arrangement was recognized in New York as early as 1817, when the Democratic legislative caucus was reenforced by representatives of the Democratic voters from those counties which had Federalist members in the state assembly.2 In 1800 the legislative caucus was transferred to Congress as a mode of making nominations for President and Vice-President. 1 For a description of a legislative caucus, see Readings, p. 112. 2 Ibid., p. 112. |