An Answer that does not Confute. and the sooner our reformers realize this fact, and begin an intelligent and consistent effort to bring men to the consideration of correct principles of economic and political action, the better. When the people have been made to understand that the true prin ciples of popular government demand the protection of the individual in his economic right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as well as his political right in the same blessings, there will be no lack of honest, earnest and intelligent men who will be willing to serve in legislative positions, and to safeguard all of the rights of the people. It is not worth while to consider the al legation of Mr. Pomeroy that I have misap plied the quotation from Washington's fare well address, or his reduetio ad absurdum. It is sufficient to say that I nowhere deny the right of the majority ultimately to gov ern in matters within the legitimate scope of legislative control. I insist, however, that the declaration that all " governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," is the keystone of our constitu tional system, not in the sense in which he undertakes to use it, that the criminal must consent to his own punishment, but in the broad sense in which it is used in the Declaration of Independence that " govern ments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." By this we are to understand, not the jurisdiction of the criminal who violates the law, but the power to make the rules necessary to determine who is, and who is not, a transgressor of the law. We consent to the power on the part of the congress to declare war, to establish post-offices and post roads, to punish counterfeiters, etc., and having consented
261
to these powers, the government has a right to enforce the laws made pursuant to these grants. The majority has no right, simply because it is a majority, to do wrong; and when we look over the history of the world, and at the long list of crimes and injustices which have been committed by majorities; when we contemplate the evils which are certain to follow upon a relaxation of the constitutional safeguards under the reign of the initiative and referendum, prudent people will be disposed to rely upon the old-fashioned constitutional government, to a system which places the majority in a position to enact, without restriction, such of law as may please the temporary fancy. It may be urged, and no doubt will be, that the Constitution may limit the power of the majority, but, as the constitutional guar antees are only effective where the judiciary is free to act without the coercive control of the majority, such safeguards would be of no consequence. The courts could not be depended upon to stand out against the ex pressed will of the majority, where such ex pression came in the form of an election by the people upon the particular question, and, if they did, the State would be powerless to impose the judgment of the court upon the majority of the people. The referendum is an invitation to revolution, inconsistent with the higher rights of society, and its advo cates honest, but mistaken reformers, whose energies might better be directed to practical problems calculated to produce the ends which all good citizens desire — the greatest good to the greatest number, the impartial and just administration of laws, and equal opportunities for every man, woman and child in the Republic.
